Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Cats @ Lakers


bLACKpANTHER

Recommended Posts

Guest Dark Knight

Just tuned in...

McRoberts loafs around under the goal flat-footed & gives up an offensive rebound, rolls to the opposite baseline in time to foul Gasol, then comes back the other way & jacks up a brick from 3.

PUT ZELLER IN THE GAME YOU BALD OAF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just stop now!!

A week ago we lost to the Knicks.

We are not a better team without our 2nd best scorer and floor leader.

 

I'm not trying to bash you but you really need to work on strengthening your arguments...

 

You also failed to mention that Carmelo Anthony went for 62 while shooting 66% from the field (that is unheard of).

 

You also failed to mention that a few weeks before we lost to the Knicks, the Knicks also beat the Heat.

 

I'm not saying that the Knicks are good, but they have a superstar in Carmelo Anthony and some solid talent around him. It seems like a coaching issue along with a character issue regarding some of the players, not a talent issue.

 

As far as the Cats being better without Kemba... at times we are better without Kemba. Sessions doesn't take near as many shots as Walker meaning that Al (who shoots 73% at the rim) can go to work down low without having to watch Kemba go 3-17 and taking touches away from him (Jefferson).

 

There's pro's and con's to Kemba's game (and personally I think we are better with him), but don't bash the man for his opinion without actual facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to bash you but you really need to work on strengthening your arguments...

 

You also failed to mention that Carmelo Anthony went for 62 while shooting 66% from the field (that is unheard of).

 

You also failed to mention that a few weeks before we lost to the Knicks, the Knicks also beat the Heat.

 

I'm not saying that the Knicks are good, but they have a superstar in Carmelo Anthony and some solid talent around him. It seems like a coaching issue along with a character issue regarding some of the players, not a talent issue.

 

As far as the Cats being better without Kemba... at times we are better without Kemba. Sessions doesn't take near as many shots as Walker meaning that Al (who shoots 73% at the rim) can go to work down low without having to watch Kemba go 3-17 and taking touches away from him (Jefferson).

 

There's pro's and con's to Kemba's game (and personally I think we are better with him), but don't bash the man for his opinion without actual facts.

 

 

I'm sorry i didn't make it clear for you but I was pointing to more of the fact that this statement was made after the 2 game winning streak after Kemba was hurt. Then we lost 2 in a row and no comment.

 

Is this going to be the new thing?? We win a few without Kemba and the haters come out. Then we lose a few and they are no where to be found.

 

Also I would like to point out that while Kemba may take more shots then Session he also demands more attention which helps other around him.  And Al's effectiveness now has nothing to do with Kemba being out. He is healthy (ankle injury) and is in NBA shape which he wasn't most of the season with Kemba .

 

Kemba is also a better defender then Session. He gets us at least 5 easy basket a night on fast breaks more then Session. 

 

So Again we are not a better team without Kemba. I said nothing wrong here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...