Welcome Davion Mitchell
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
That was one poster that said that and not an entire board narrative. If you had a problem with his comments, then respond to him and tell him why you disagree with him. Being indirectly passive aggressive days later might get you some likes but it does nothing to further the conversation, which is what we're all here for.
Ok sorry if I read it wrong. Your posts just read very angry lately at all the hot takes that get thrown around. You're one of the OGs of the board so you know how it goes around here. Throw out a hot take of your own and we'll talk about it. It's not like we have anything else to do until preseason starts 
Ok sorry if I read it wrong. Your posts just read very angry lately at all the hot takes that get thrown around. You're one of the OGs of the board so you know how it goes around here. Throw out a hot take of your own and we'll talk about it. It's not like we have anything else to do until preseason starts
I have real problems with people throwing out completely unsupported statements and presenting them as fact. For instance, I am cool with people saying “what about this trade?” Or “wouldn’t it be great to rebuild in this way?” Or “Monte should do this.” I have a much bigger problem with “Based on what I am portraying as fact about how a confidential trade discussion went down (even though none of us know) Monte got played” or “Monte is terrible because he didn’t take this trade that no one even knows was actually on the table.” I’ve got no problem with hot takes and opinions. I just don’t like building narratives on “facts” that we don’t know are facts. There is someone who has been doing that fairly often, but I usually call him/her out directly when I see it.
Honestly had no clue that same person was the same one who made the Davion comment. I was actually trying to be humorous and not a “fact checker curmudgeon” this time. But I get how you can read it that way given the previous battles I’ve had with that poster the past few weeks
of course you don’t really know what information people may or may not have and from what sources. So you choose to make yourself the arbiter of information because apparently you know it all. I would suggest instead of passing judgement on something for which you know nothing, you just let things play out and see what information is and isn’t credible.
or better yet if my posts bother you, block me. I certainly won’t miss your posts all that much.
or better yet if my posts bother you, block me. I certainly won’t miss your posts all that much.
I guess I touched a nerve. I never said I know it all. In fact, the only thing I’ve said I do know, is that YOU don’t know it all. Unless you are Worldwide Wes, or some insider, I’m not sure how you can conclusively state what was on the table with Atlanta, what the offers were from Boston, how things went down with the Lakers, etc. I’ve never said I know something to be true; I’ve just pointed out the times that you speak in “facts” when you can’t possibly know if those things are actually true.
Whatever though. Not worth the back and forth.
Whatever though. Not worth the back and forth.
When the Kings for Ben Simmons trade talk first began, I was happy to hear that the Kings were very interested, but would not be parting with Fox or Hali. Basically any other Kings players could be made available in the hopes of picking up Simmons. But now, at the risk of overvaluing Davion, I’m not sure any trade package that included Davion would be worth the gamble. I’m really excited to see how we roll with Fox, Hali, Davion and TD in the backcourt. Simmons could be the C-Webb of our era. But with his confidence problem, he could also end up being a contract albatross.
No team flirting with playing defense as bad as the League has ever seen, will go to any playoffs.
Mitchell brings defense which is great, but his intensity seemed to ruboff on the SL team. I see him as a leader. For a rookie that is unusual. But the Kings have lacked leadership since they lost guys like Randolph, Cousins, IT and Shumpert.
Mitchell brings a lot to a team that needs confidence, toughness, intensity and leadership. He brings all of that stuff.
We will see a lot of 3 guard play. The big guys can substiture freely. This team could be playing fast and pushing the ball like never before.
Mitchell brings defense which is great, but his intensity seemed to ruboff on the SL team. I see him as a leader. For a rookie that is unusual. But the Kings have lacked leadership since they lost guys like Randolph, Cousins, IT and Shumpert.
Mitchell brings a lot to a team that needs confidence, toughness, intensity and leadership. He brings all of that stuff.
We will see a lot of 3 guard play. The big guys can substiture freely. This team could be playing fast and pushing the ball like never before.
Maybe. But I think the Kings problem was not being near shooters/not making shooters uncomfortable.
In general, I think you are correct - long defenders are better at bothering shots. But having a dawg going over screens and disrupting the offense might have more of an effect on this Kings’ team. I’m interested to see how it works out - whether 3 guards will lead to better perimeter D (lower 3 point percentage) and less drives to the basket or worse perimeter D due to tall wings catching and shooting.
In general, I think you are correct - long defenders are better at bothering shots. But having a dawg going over screens and disrupting the offense might have more of an effect on this Kings’ team. I’m interested to see how it works out - whether 3 guards will lead to better perimeter D (lower 3 point percentage) and less drives to the basket or worse perimeter D due to tall wings catching and shooting.
