00Blink

I agree with the 'what it takes to be a rival' assessment 100%. And for the reasons you stated above, that is why I go with Wiz. There is bad blood, at least from the Wiz perspective. Wall talking about we intentionally tried to hurt him and we intentionally went after his hand. Beal stating that they should've flat out won the series - disrespecting us. And of course the drama and excitement that Paula Pierce brought for one year. He ignited the rivalry! Just like the Boston series a few years back between him and Horford and him and Joe Johnson (Joe choking at the line and Paul Pierce taunting - CLASSIC). Don't forget the 'did you call glass?'...<pause>...'I call game'. That was some good $hit right there - another CLASSIC!! The playoff series brought excitement, drama, intrigue, and relevance to the rival. I think it continues as both teams get better and improves and truly becomes eastern conference contenders. Add to the fact that we are in the same division and yeah, I call Wiz our rivals.

I can agree with EVERYTHING you said. Chemistry 'can' trump talent but it takes A LOT of chemistry to trump talent. It is rare as well. See Detroit vs Lakers and that is the only time that chemistry has truly trumped talent. Well, also maybe Spurs vs Heat because Miami clearly had better talent but didn't have the chemistry and pedigree of the Spurs. Also, counting old school players and comparing their game is a bit asinine. However, from late 70s on up should be fair game. And we would still lose by a long shot. Even with Shaq and Kareem, look at the twin towers. Kareem didn't have a jumpshot, he had a LETHAL, DEADLY, UNSTOPPABLE, jump hook. All in all, we don't stand a snowballs chance in Hades.

This is nice and all, but NONE of them is Top 5 at their position. The Lakers ENTIRE squad is Top 3 at their position aside from Elgin, who in his own right, is underrated. There is still no comparison. The talent level is not equal.

Please don't leave out talent and there is a clear difference in talent.

Sometimes you have some good ones Diesel and make valid points in your debates. However, this is not one of those times. That would be a MASSACRE and it would not be in the same realm of realities for us to beat them on their WORST night. Lakers have Top 3 IN HISTORY at every position: Magic - #1 Point Guard Kobe - #2 Shooting Guard Baylor - old school underrated (name not mentioned with elites enough) Kareem - Top 3 center (debatable #1; my #1 but too many greats - Olajuwon, Shaq, Robinson, Wilt, Russell) Shaq - Top 3 center (see above) vs. Pistol - old school - Top 10 in history (too many PGs above him) Sweet Lou - nice player - but not top 20 Nique - bias kicks in (Top 5 Small Forward) - maybe definitely Top 7-8 Petit - see pistol Pete (Top 15 PF - maybe) Moses - GREAT player - Top 7-10 center Deke - good, not great player, but excellent defender and rebounder, not intimidated by ANYONE All of that to say - NO COMPARISON

If I could like this 5 times over, I would. #TRUTH!!

I DEFINITELY would like Moose over either of those two even though I do like Scott quite a bit. I just like EVERYTHING that Moose brings outside of him needing to gain some core strength and muscle mass. He plays interior and can kick out to the midrange and perimeter. He does not appear to be intimidated by anyone. He tries and attacks/defend EVERY shot. He hustles and has a decent offensive game in the post. To top it all off, he rebounds at a pretty nice clip. I like Moose. Moose for Prez!! Well, 8-9 man anyway.

If we could only somehow swing that SnT for DeMarre, with a NG contract, that would be sweeeet!! But, would we be able to trade Ridnour to the Spurs after we picked him up in a trade? I thought we wouldn't be able to until around mid December, correct? Anywho...

I agree with everything you said 100% except number 1. I think this transaction did both of us a solid, just networking amongst great friends and mentors. We NEEDED a bonafide big badly. Splitter is more than a capable backup with a championship pedigree, who knows the system EXTREMELY well. He can thrive here given more minutes. I see him getting maybe 26-28 minutes a game, averaging about 11/8. Not bad at all. He gives us much needed size when we have to go big and he plays good defense. He gives us an offensive interior presence. Alebeit, not creating but at least not camping around the perimeter and midrange. He is EXACTLY what we needed, especially with us bringing back Milsap. We can alternate/tinker rotations based on matchups.

The sums up the ECF implosion. I cannot believe the coaching of CMB. He would take Teague out when he was hot and we were up or at least competing and put in Schröder. Then the dam breaks loose.

Rust? Tweak? Or the Hawks just FINALLY have a complete series and step up against the unsurmountable, in formidable King and WIN??!!

Here! Here!

And Pierce gets the heartache of INSTANT triumph to INSTANT failure.

The best part about it is that Pierce get to go home thinking...what could've been...a nanosecond!!!

I think the Wiz go after him because they already know that he isn't a 'regular' rotation guy and that he is inexperienced. If he would've been a regular part of the rotation, they probably wouldn't attack him 'as much'. However, they have went at everyone of our big men. They went to Gortat last night late in the game, when he got that bounce that initially hit BELOW/DIRECT HIT at the rim and bounced up and in. Everyone was asking, 'how did that go in?' All of that to say, you're on the court in a playoff game, they are DEFINITELY going to go after inexperienced players. The Wiz were comfortable playing Pierce at the 4 against Sap, even though Sap was abusing him. It doesn't diminish what Pierce brought on the floor, at the position at that point in the game. Moose brings length, rebounding, offense and hustle. Maybe not the post defense of Pero but definitely the help defense and altering of shots. Also, Pero is camped out at the 3 point line. How can he get any ORebs? I take Musky for who he is, what he does. Give this man more PT until he shows more liability than reliability.