08-30-2021, 10:27 AM
(08-30-2021, 06:42 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: Boston? Detroit? Portland? Houston? New York getting an A- because they signed Kemba Walker while Boston gets a lower grade because they had to trade Kemba?
This writer seems to have an inconsistent judgment when it comes to grading.
I agree the Mavs had a C+ offseason. We didn't get any super flashy names and while I think the Bullock and S.Brown signings were important, they didn't fix the most glaring issues. On that same token, all these other teams had inflated grades while he graded the Mavs the most realistically. Boston does not deserve a B- for taking on Richardson, trading away Kemba for Horford, and signing Schroeder.
Detroit shouldn't automatically get a B because they lucked their way into getting Cade Cunningham. Their entire offseason consisted of trading away Plumlee and signing Olynyk to an overpriced deal (3/37 is overpriced for a 3rd string big). That's an incomplete until we see how Cade looks or C if you really want to include adding the number 1 pick.
He gives the Blazers a B, but ends his piece with "it's not looking good." So which is it? Are they not looking good or did they have a better offseason than 11 teams? The Blazers had one of the more messier offseasons of recent memory, and outside of adding Nance Jr. they didn't get anyone of note either. Their own superstar even said so.
Further, it seems like he's really knocking the Mavs for hiring JKidd, while simultaneously praising the Blazers for getting Billups.
A mess of an article. I don't expect anything less from Bleacher Report.
EDIT: I just realized he gave the Lakers a B+ and Chicago a B. That might be the most egregious of them all.
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.
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.
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.
I think Lakers moves are totally polarizing - some see them as great, some don't think it will work. So I don't hold the B+ against the author. But I don't understand what is your issue with Chicago. DeRozan move was strange but the rest was all excellent. Really improved at PG, their biggest weakness, while snatching Ball for basically nothing, got value for Markkanen. Without DeRozan it would be a clear A+.