• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Paul George Safari: LeBron Strikes Back!

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
MarkPriceFan said:
I am loving this whole Wiggins rehash...

Charles-Barkley-Falling-Asleep-Inside-the-NBA.gif
Click to expand...

Agreed... It's a bit weird since this wasn't the point of my post at all...

I should've considered that even mentioning Wiggins name in this thread would've had this result, because so many folks have used Wiggins as an expletive to bash Love -- but that isn't what I'm doing, so the reflexive 'Love > Wiggins' posts aren't really on topic.
 
gourimoko said:
The bolded doesn't make sense. Love wasn't superior to anyone in the Finals that we actually won a title.

I don't disagree with anything else here; but again, a lot of people are missing the point.. I get it's nuanced, and not at all realistic; but it's not intended to be realistic. It's designed to make one objectively analyze the outcome of decisions we've made in a present and dispassionate sense rather than contemporaneous and vested manner.
Click to expand...

I'm 100% with this thought gour.

I think that you can approach "win-now" mode much smarter than we did, or that teams have in the past. It's really all about taking your time and not burning assets on old vets just because you need the help. A better opportunity will usually arise, where you can flip those assets for younger players, whom you then will have impact your team longer into the future.

Burning our assets on Frye, Korver. Salary cap on Tristan and JR without anyone else even making an offer just wasn't the correct way to go about it. We knew what these players were, and we paid them more than they command really. Now it's left us strapped.

Imagine if we could have cleared a max slot this off-season by moving a couple pieces around? Or if we still had all the picks we burned on rentals/old players. (I can't really even complain about Frye because he absolutely changed our culture)

At the time we thought they were the right moves. Looking back, it just looks sloppy and rushed, and the feeling now is we could have managed the situation way, way better.
 
I didn't want to participate in a Wiggins rehash other than to say it is not truly objective to time travel and create a new reality under the assumption that a whole lot of things become subject to change, especially freak injuries.

I mean, what if Love would have had to stop and re-tie his shoelace a minute before he got his shoulder yanked out of place? One small change can create a completely different new reality. To in any way make assumptions about the cascade of reality changes that would come from something as substantial as 2 completely different players never being traded becomes an exercise in absurdity not worth discussion IMO.

Having said that I'd swap Love if it meant PG with a chance to sign him longer term to pair with Lebron. But that would require us making other moves to compensate for the loss of Love's presence on the glass.
 
David. said:
Having the foresight to predict a better player in Kevin Love would have less valur than Wiggins, who is largely awful, isn't realistic.
Click to expand...

Neither is time travel into the past; which was the entire premise of the hypothetical.. They hypothetical isn't intended to be realistic.

David. said:
If love was healthy in 15,we probably win. He's normally healthy. Accounting for olynk ripping his arm out is unrealistic.
Click to expand...

It's not intended to be realistic.... the premise was literally having a time machine or some mechanism of informing yourself of future events.

Again, I think a lot of folks are jumping out here and kind of missing the forest for the trees.

David. said:
We can look at a snapshot of today and say "if all of these variables had even different, and all of these variables happened perfectly to present this situation", but why?
Click to expand...

The reason for the question is to evaluate the outcome, not the rationale.
 
buzzdog said:
I didn't want to participate in a Wiggins rehash other than to say it is not truly objective to time travel and create a new reality under the assumption that a whole lot of things become subject to change, especially freak injuries.
Click to expand...

Of course it can be "objective," it's simply not realistic. That's why it's a thought experiment... it's not at all intended to be realistic.

The hypothetical is, what if you don't make that specific trade, and swap out Kevin Love's history with an extrapolation of Wiggins' expected performance.

You can choose to not entertain the hypothetical and that's fine; I think most people prefer not to think about it given the responses thus far. But the point here is not an evaluation of either Wiggins or Love, which I think people are interpreting this as, even though I've said now about a dozen times, that's not the goal. The goal is to instead evaluate the Cavs' current status based around a consideration of the choices made to get us to this point -- not the rationale for those choices, but solely based on an ex post facto, or retrospective, evaluation of solely the outcome of the decisions, again not the contemporaneous rationale behind said decisions.

buzzdog said:
I mean, what if Love would have had to stop and re-tie his shoelace a minute before he got his shoulder yanked out of place? One small change can create a completely different new reality. To in any way make assumptions about the cascade of reality changes that would come from something as substantial as 2 completely different players never being traded becomes an exercise in absurdity not worth discussion IMO.
Click to expand...

That's a different hypothetical than the one I posed, which is a bit of a non-sequitur. It's totally fine to ask this, but, again, it's not to the point of the question.

buzzdog said:
Having said that I'd swap Love if it meant PG with a chance to sign him longer term to pair with Lebron. But that would require us making other moves to compensate for the loss of Love's presence on the glass.
Click to expand...

Agreed...

Love for PG and bringing in Melo makes sense. PG starting at the off guard, Melo at the 4.
 
gourimoko said:
Of course it can be "objective," it's simply not realistic. That's why it's a thought experiment.
Click to expand...

I came in to see what was happening w/ the Paul George thing and saw this as the first post. Not a damn thing, I surmise? :p
 
grob23lbj said:
What the hell are we discussing a player for that is not a part of this team and is not an option in the near future! That part of the past is irrelevant now. This is a PG Safari. At least that's what I thought.
Click to expand...

Since the point of the question keeps getting missed; I'll just reiterate it here: it's how one chooses to go into "Win Now" mode.

For example; lots of people have argued that we should've traded Kyrie for CP3. But does that make sense?

There are people on the board today that argue we should trade Kevin Love for an actual 1-year rental of Paul George... Does that make sense?

I'm against these kinds of moves... I'm for building a winner through smart decisions that focuses not just on short-term success, but long-term high-level contention. I'd rather hold on to Kyrie and Love and build around those two, than make precipitous moves that could lead to a complete teardown and rebuild in just one season.

So the point here isn't to actually discuss how good Wiggins is or isn't; I think that's completely beside the point that was being made or implied. The question is, does it always make sense to blow your wad in the first 15 minutes? Or do you grip your dick and hold your nut for the long evening ahead? Personally I like to fuck all night, but some might disagree...
 
Wrathe said:
I came in to see what was happening w/ the Paul George thing and saw this as the first post. Not a damn thing, I surmise? :p
Click to expand...

It's a safari... conversations like this happen.. I really don't see the problem... o_O
 
tsteele316 said:
so, in a brilliant piece of logic, fedor surmises that of the 3 teams currently being said to be pursuing paul george, if the other two decide to no longer do so, that cleveland's offer might be the best one indiana has on the table. i'm glad he settled that one.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think the Lakers can or would top Cleveland's offer...

IMHO, the Lakers are already outbid and they're out of the mix...

It's really up to the Celtics and George at this point.. How much are they willing to give up for him with or without a commitment to stay long-term? I doubt Ainge gambles his entire warchest of assets on a player who is noncommittal. Think he'd rather just wait til the deadline and see who is available.

There's lots of moving parts, and the Celtics will be capped out if they sign Hayward regardless so they're not going to rush out and spend their assets in a haphazard way..
 
So this paul george bullsh*t could carry on for a while yet :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top