Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ncfan

Hornets in talks for Bradley Beal

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, rhyslloyd said:

At this point, I'd give up Bridges before Monk.  Bridges' shot is almost as bad as MKG's shot was prior to coach Price.  Also like MKG, I don't see him being a consistent scoring threat.  Dunks are cool and all but not if that's probably the only way you'll score.  If Borrego wants this team to live and die by the deep ball, Bridges is a horrible choice for that offense.

2018:
Bridges = 22/56 - 3pt made - .504%
Monk = 38/118 - 3pt made - .366%

2017:
Monk = 83/243 - 3pt made - .360%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


9 minutes ago, bLACKpANTHER said:

2018:
Bridges = 22/56 - 3pt made - .504%
Monk = 38/118 - 3pt made - .366%

2017:
Monk = 83/243 - 3pt made - .360%

Bridges is shooting 36% from 3, not 50% (your math is wrong also), but I can acknowledge that Monk hasn't been the dead eye we thought so far.  However, I'd still take Monk's long-term prospects to become a great shooter over Bridges shot putting the ball at the basket over the next 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rhyslloyd said:

Bridges is shooting 36% from 3, not 50% (your math is wrong also), but I can acknowledge that Monk hasn't been the dead eye we thought so far.  However, I'd still take Monk's long-term prospects to become a great shooter over Bridges shot putting the ball at the basket over the next 5 years.

ur right - i goofed and put in his FG% not his 3pt%

I still like Bridges upside more because his defensive ability.. Monk should be our starting 2 guard right now if it wasn't for his size.. i dont hate either prospect.. maybe the Beal trade isn't worth it at all.. i have kinda cooled on the thought and maybe we stick with what we have?

we just need to get rid of one of the top 3 contracts we have: Batum, Marvin, Biz.. Cody and MKG aren't worth the $$$ we are paying them, but they are key pieces that every contender needs..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bLACKpANTHER said:

ur right - i goofed and put in his FG% not his 3pt%

I still like Bridges upside more because his defensive ability.. Monk should be our starting 2 guard right now if it wasn't for his size.. i dont hate either prospect.. maybe the Beal trade isn't worth it at all.. i have kinda cooled on the thought and maybe we stick with what we have?

we just need to get rid of one of the top 3 contracts we have: Batum, Marvin, Biz.. Cody and MKG aren't worth the $$$ we are paying them, but they are key pieces that every contender needs..

I've kinda resigned myself to the reality that we probably won't do anything, too.  I'm fine keeping them both, as well, but we're stuck in that middle ground like so many teams. We aren't good enough to be a contender, but we're too good to go full on tank like we probably should in order to get that top-5 pick.  Even if we clear those contracts, we're still that middle-of-the-road team who has to throw huge money at a borderline top tier guy while the legitimate top tier guys take less money to gang up and beat our asses.  The NBA has some serious issues when only 3 or 4 teams are actually good, and everyone else should be jockeying for the top pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, rhyslloyd said:

The NBA has some serious issues when only 3 or 4 teams are actually good, and everyone else should be jockeying for the top pick.

This. 

Want to love the Hornets, but knowing that I have more fingers on one hand than there are teams in the NBA realistically capable of competing for a championship year in and year out makes the league a big snore fest.

Bottom Line:  The NBA needs to come up with a way of ensuring more parity among the teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

This. 

Want to love the Hornets, but knowing that I have more fingers on one hand than there are teams in the NBA realistically capable of competing for a championship year in and year out makes the league a big snore fest.

Bottom Line:  The NBA needs to come up with a way of ensuring more parity among the teams. 

Only way that happens is a hard cap, max contract value limits. Players association wont go for it. Doubt it will ever happen. 

 

Hard Cap limit at 100m, 90% minimum spending for teams. Player contracts tap out at 35% value, minimum contracts go up. That way only way a team can sign more then 1 superstar/max contract type of player is if they take massive payouts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, carpanfan96 said:

Only way that happens is a hard cap, max contract value limits. Players association wont go for it. Doubt it will ever happen. 

 

Hard Cap limit at 100m, 90% minimum spending for teams. Player contracts tap out at 35% value, minimum contracts go up. That way only way a team can sign more then 1 superstar/max contract type of player is if they take massive payouts. 

And also do away with the lottery.  The beauty of the worst team picking first is that it gives them a legit chance to quickly get better and compete.  But when the worst team has the legit potential, if not likelihood, to drop several picks, you limit the ability for them to quickly improve through the draft.  Most drafts only have a couple players with true superstar potential, and dropping a few spots usually takes a team out of contention for them.  Just think how our fortunes would be different if we had drafted Anthony Davis instead of MKG like should have happened.

I know the big issue is tanking, but rather than penalize teams who legitimately are not good, but doing their best to improve, the NBA should go hard after teams that are tanking.  It's usually not too difficult to recognize when a team is tanking and not simply rebuilding anyway.  And to be honest, I would rather have the occasional tank job than not give a cellar dweller a chance to improve.  Tanking is not guaranteed to work anyway, and if it doesn't, it will quickly backfire on a team.  I just find the lottery horribly unfair to legitimate bad teams.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nice-Carolina-Chuck said:

Bridges’ is a rookie and Monk is in his 2nd yr. Fans expect way too much for players these days. I believe those two men can become really good players in 2-3 years from now. I was a Kemba hater for many years. It took Kemba a long time to become the player he is. 

Bridges shot is so much better than MKG. It’ll get better. And he can be more than just a highlight reels dunker. He has great size to push players around inside. 

We know Monk can shoot the ball lights out. Problem is, we’re not seeing it right now. I dont know what the problem is. Maybe, confidence? Im more worried about Monk than Bridges long term than Monk’s game revolves soley with his 3pt shooting. If he cant make shots consistently, he could be JAG. He doesnt have a mid range game and not a guy who can get to the basket like Kemba. He’s a shooter, not scorer. Bridges can score. 

To say we expect too much is ridiculous 

look at Donavan Mitchell as an example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      20,039
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    lavanyathelabel
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      145,884
    • Total Posts
      4,773,818
  • Posts

    • Darn you. Darn you straight to heck. I cannot darn you to heck any more strongly for what you're forcing me to point out. Someone literally just posted the other day a reminder thread of the greatest collapse and most epic comeback in the history of the Super Bowl. The qb at the helm for the winning team on the comeback side was Brady. If you are going to classify the qb who led the greatest comeback in the history of the most important game as a game manager and not a playmaker, I feel like the term loses all relevant meaning. I despise Brady but am forced to point out that if you don't call the qb who has that feat on his resume a playmaker, then realistically no one has the right to that term or the term is meaningless and you're assigning it arbitrarily. In particular I'm perplexed that you would put Rodgers on one list and Brady on the other. Aside from Rodgers greater mobility, what skill does he posses that Brady does not? Are you suggesting that being a playmaker is directly tied to athleticism that allows greater physical mobility and thus elusiveness that typical qb's do not possess? The presence of Manning on your playmaker list clearly says no, which leaves me scratching my head at the basis on which some qb's are on one list, some on the other. Either way, I'm highly mildly annoyed at you for forcing me to bring up Brady's comeback against Atlanta in the interest of intellectual honesty.
    • Oh my, that poor guy. No matter how lights out he has been playing, no matter how great he has been on the field, this is one of those moments when he's just like one of us: hurting and grieving. May God be with his family during their time of loss and through the tough days ahead.
    • He'd make a helluva WR and backup QB.
  • Masters of PIE !

×
×
  • Create New...