You misspelled thirteen.![]()
28 points in 28 minutes...New career high for Casspi. Well, that's an interesting change of pace.
How is that even relevant to my point
Eh, don't mind me. I like to have fun.
It's only relevant in a long-winded way that isn't really worth explaining because it's a pretty poor reason... but we are all on a internet forum talking about a perennial NBA lottery team to begin with so I'll try to explain it a bit since I enjoy your posts. Suggesting that targeting the return of Casspi next year will help team chemistry (and presumably lead to more success) might also suggest that Pete's continued presence is a good thing (for chemistry). I don't consider Pete's continued presence a positive thing, and I am indifferent to Casspi's effect on the floor ... so I really don't think that Casspi's return just for stability's sake is that important. I like him though - he hustles. I'd take him over Dwill, but would be happy if neither are back.
Bhullar is probably FOL. Karl looks like he wants to break this losing streak and, since we can't stand prosperity, he can't really afford to play him.
Got it. For the record, PDA can pound sand and I'd keep casspi at the right and very low price only.
My stability concern is more about the roster in general than casspi in particular. Since many if those pieces is like to see gone, casspi is one I'd be ok with sticking around.
JT moving on that charge call. Nice to know we get calls against teams worse than us
The Wiggins shoulder was very lowered. Should have been a charge regardless.
Usually it's the former. But I can't always come out and say so. Just the way it is.
In this case, it's what I'm hearing. I like Omri and think he's a good value, especially if he keeps his salary down. But with so many players tough to unload this summer, he's one of the few UFA's, and I'm pretty sure this is going to be an all-out housecleaning by Karl and Vlade.
True enough, for whatever that's worth, but I think his point was that Wiggins actually committed the violation, and the rule doesn't require the defender to be standing stock still."Should have" ... doesn't always work that way for us though.
There aren't enoughWhere does this Lin put us?
Where does this Lin put us?
Where does this Lin put us?
Thanks Capt.True enough, for whatever that's worth, but I think his point was that Wiggins actually committed the violation, and the rule doesn't require the defender to be standing stock still.
Where does this Lin put us?