Premium Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


sturt last won the day on August 23

sturt had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About sturt

Previous Fields

  • Fan since

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Beaumont, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

10,631 profile views

sturt's Achievements


Mentor (12/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Whoa. I just realized. BRUNO STUCK ON THE C'S 15-MAN (!). Way to go big fella.
  2. Not to be Debbie Downer, but we're going to find out pretty early how healthy Dre's knee really is... just look at when the team gets its first two-day break... after 12 games...
  3. Have to say yeah to that. I believe he can guard practically anyone 6-1 to 6-11 better than the median defender can. It's only when you get at or above 7-0 and with that have a big chest like Embiid... or get at or below 6-0 and with that have exceptional quickness... that I think his defensive benefit evaporates.
  4. Yep. And a very bad contract, ie for humongous expense, both in terms of (a) actual money and (b) opportunity cost and flexibility to obtain other players as needed.
  5. I can buy that, too, but it's a whole other topic, of course.
  6. There's a part of me that doesn't mind Hunter being on restricted minutes for awhile (assuming that happens)... ie, so that Cam gets significant playing time practically automatically and doesn't press.... to me, that's the key right now... Cam needs to get into a flow and not feel the weight of constantly having to feel his floor time is threatened by his next bad shot. Fortunately, I think we have the right head coach who's going to be able to facilitate that flow regardless, but it's easier if Hunter isn't forcing the issue by playing so well that McM can't feel good about substituting him.
  7. I'm slower to that conclusion, even with this newest dust-up proving to me (for what that matters) that Simmons is at least as immature as I was when I was 25. And that's pretty immature, I have to say. (Sorry @kg01, but if you show up for practice and the very first things you do demonstrate you didn't show up mentally prepared for even the most routine, mundane expectations of a practice... in the context that both parties had just agreed to try to get along at some basic level of camaraderie... that tips the scales of impropriety firmly over to the Simmons side.) And I'm slower to that conclusion because when someone's been psychologically flogged to the degree that Simmons has, there's some chance that when such a person begins to see light at the end of that tunnel, s/he feels both empowered and highly motivated to prove everyone wrong. And were Simmons to end up with an actual contending team, I see that chance increasing exponentially--because the potential for not only proving everyone wrong, but making the playoffs a public show of how wrong they all were, makes for off-the-charts motivation. And too, there's the Rodman factor, which says that if a team already has strong personalities (like Jordan et al) and a firm sense of own culture, it can withstand the insertion of a personality that represents a potential shock to stability. We might not be there yet, but then again we might be. But none of that matters because of the current salary ledger situation put together with the belief that this isn't the time to take any team chemistry risks, and especially so given the anticipated continued growth and maturity of our high-potential too-young-to-rent-a-car players. In short, Simmons may or may not be the wrong player for us... but his contract is definitely a wrong contract at this juncture. Maybe that changes by next off-season, or who knows, maybe even by the trade deadline.
  8. Good for us, they've both so estranged themselves, b/c if that trade were to happen, seems both the Nets and Sixers get better.
  9. *sigh* Again. The difference in opinion is not whether something happened to change his mind. We agree (as far as one can tell) what his state of mind was, even if you decide to bold italicize "might." That's still what he said. That's still clear indication of what his thinking was (big), and as importantly to this discussion, that it wasn't, say, a wing. The difference in opinion is whether there is any other plausible reason for picking a wing off the scrapheap but that the something that happened to change his mind was Hunter's knee and the corresponding perceived need for some insurance unless/until that knee gets to 100%. You've given it the ol college try. Kudos. But no. None hold water. The swelling knee (pun obviously intended) is the pivotal issue, and TLC is the beneficiary. And as-if there were any doubt, go back to Schlenk's pre-training camp Zoom presser, and one of the first questions he answers is from Sarah about Dre, and his words were "we anticipate him to be full go at the start of the season." So is it some pet cat status? Or did I just irritate the living daylights out of you with all my posts about the last roster spot these last several weeks? I could see either being the case. No reason not to be honest.
  10. Nah. I keep referencing Schlenk's comments as-if it was his stated intention, and, that he pretty much does what he says he's going to do unless there's some new unanticipated development. Most of those are my exact words at one point or another. And they're not wrong. And that's what's happened... an unanticipated development. The proposition that it's not all about Hunter is the actual dispute here, as far as I can decipher. And yet, given the process of deduction, there is no other plausible option. One gets the sense that, for whatever reason, TLC is a pet cat of yours, that you think he won the job because he's shown so much. It happens. It's okay. I just would be one to just admit that, me. If not that, I have no clue why this is so important to you to dispute.
  11. Now c'mon. (1) Even assuming Big2O is back in a month, whoever is the 15th man on a min non-guaranteed contract would have no bearing on the situation on October 18th, many games before that. (You know that. Why am I having to say it?) (2a) Schlenk didn't specify a C. He said a big. (Again... you know that.) And there's good reason to think the smarter play would be a PF anyhow, but regardless... (2b) Whatever "scraps" were on the market among the bigs, who's saying TLC is so outstanding a wing as to distinguish himself from "scraps" status? (3) Of the three ideas, this one is far and away the best grounded now that Gallo's opening night health has become an issue.... ...and yet... but... then... that only should lead to the conclusion... again... that you still need another player who can be the 5th big. Johnson needs minutes. And he's not getting them as the 5th big in SFA. That didn't seem lost on Schlenk when he made his comment a month ago, and it's difficult to make a case why that would have changed now. No. You're grasping at straws, my friend. No other reasonable way to interpret the roster move. So noted. Game threads just aren't usually my thing. Preseason game threads really aren't usually my thing.... hehe.
  12. @JayBirdHawk I did see you make that point, and it is valid (except for one mostly insignificant detail). But I'm just going on what the GM himself said... and I'm pretty sure you know I'm not making it up. Schlenk distinctly said in that most recent Zoom presser that he thought it was obvious that the roster as it stood then was skewed heavy on guards, and that he would probably be inclined to add another big. It's not wrong, in my opinion, to think Schlenk doesn't change his mind without something prompting it. What prompted it? Well, it's not as-if TLC's preseason performance blew everyone away. (Am I wrong?) And it is as-if we've known all along that there remain some health concerns/questions due to Hunter's knee swelling after games. So here we are, not where Schlenk thought we'd be. Perhaps. I don't read every thread like some people appear to do... sue me ... but my sense is it hasn't been mentioned in the context of starting the damn season with the problem, or at least, not bad enough that a roster slot would need to be dedicated to insurance. _________________________________________________ That (truly) insignificant detail? It's that Schlenk's math appears to always count two-ways. The only way you could look at our roster of 14--with 5 guys who ever play SG with any regularity--and say it skews heavier toward guards is to count Cooper and Mays. Otherwise, it's a dead even 5 guards, 6 bigs (1 injured) and 3 whose best assignment is SF. So, Knight would be counted in that math, and that puts the big count at dead-even year over year.
  13. While I was kinda-to-somewhat serious in that post, I wasn't nearly so serious as all of this seems to indicate you'd thought. So, soberly, make no mistake, I believe you when you say you're "not content with any of our players being a continuing injury concern." Truly. Seriously. I do. MY implicit issue (I thought obviously) is that no one (media or here, other than me it seems) is talking about the implication of the roster decision... and that (yet again) we have to figure it out for ourselves that there is a health issue still bothering a player we're counting on in a big way. Your post... and I hasten to say I apologize for using your words as I did... was merely a platform to call attention to what a major "announcement" it was when the 15th player's identity was made public... though in actions not so much words, since the words "Dre is still having trouble, and we need some insurance" hasn't yet come out of anyone's mouth from inside the Hawks deep state. Nothing anyone can do about that, of course, but whine and kick dirt. But whine and kick dirt, we should... at least those of us who believe Dre's absence is a primary reason we didn't get to the Finals last time, and I'm one.