Russell isn't a higher flyer by any means but he's atleast an average athlete. Ingram while lengthy isn't exactly a high flyer either. Im not rating ceiling based on athleticism either. For one Russell was just a flat out better bucket getter than both at the college level and pretty much proved that at the NBA level. Ingram struggled a lot to score for the majority of the year.
I didn't do it solely on athleticism. It's also based on position (PG or SG), competition (Western Conference) and potential for growth of his skills relative to where he is.
PG/SG - he's going to have to get past better athletes or depend on P&R to get to the basket, which he has a hard time doing on his own.
West Conference - he's got a lot of competition. No matter how skilled he is, he's not going to trump skill AND better athletes at his position.
Potential Skill Growth - what skill do you think Russell doesn't have that he can acquire? And I'm serious. He's pretty close to maxed out on the amount of skills you want from a guard. What he doesn't have is the athleticism/speed to take any of it to the next level.
And if you're arguing he's a good athlete, I'll argue Ball and Ingram are better athletes.
If you're arguing he's got skills, I will argue both Ball and Ingram have skills and athleticism.
No matter what, Ball and Ingram's ceiling's are higher than Russell's if all of them reach their max potential, IMHO.
Either way Im kind of over arguing about the on court stuff. I dont think Russell was traded b/c he didn't cut the mustard or was lacking in production at all. If anything I believe that's what should have saved him. They disagreed with that and felt that 2018 cap room was more important. We will find out next year if that's the case.
I don't put a lot of stock in the hearsay either...I view this from a point of logic which is Russell helped shed Moz's contract and create a path for cap space next year.
Personally I would have preferred Lonzo AND D'angelo working interchangeably. Russell should have never been forced into a pure playmaker b/c he never WAS that. Just like Lonzo isn't a scorer but he can shoot.
Lonzo: Playmaker that can shoot but not a scorer
D'Angelo: Scorer that can make plays like a PG
There's a case to be made for that. I don't think you're wrong. I don't think trading Russell is wrong either. Lots of different perspectives that are neither wrong nor right.
GCMD, don't shift the burden of proof. It's your claim, not mine, that "some people don't believe in the Front Office and won't give them a chance"
I gave an example of the person who did it and how it applied. It's clear to everyone who I was talking about but he's cool with me so I didn't want to throw him under the bus. It wasn't because it wasn't true. I also mentioned FIDO as an example of someone who didn't feel enamored with Russell and didn't want to build around him. Those statements are TRUE and if you ask them, they will tell you that (Maj, be honest, LOL).
You did NOT provide an explanation of what was misrepresenting or false about what I said. You just created an argument based on what you read into what I said...and that's by definition, a straw man.
So the burden of proof DOES lie with you. My statements were fact. I could go back and pull up statements from both of these guys and others that would support those assessments. Can you PROVE that Majesty DIDN'T post those things? No.
Also you claimed I created a false dichotomy. I did not. You have to prove I did because that's YOUR claim...in fact, your claim ignored other data inside the same post to MISREPRESENT my views...again, straw man.
You ask me to prove a negative.
You stated I said something that was not correct. I asked you for proof that it wasn't. That's not a negative.
Proving a negative is when someone asks if there has NEVER been a person who shares that view...I made the claim that a person does and he did. You claim he didn't. The statements in question EXIST. I asked you to prove that what I was saying was false, which you can't. That's not a negative, that's a conformation of FACTS and examination of well-defined and constricted evidence...I did not ask you to attempt to disprove something from an infinite data set.
Rule of best evidence - I have some with description and detail, you have nothing but a denial. My statement with detail and description is more evidentiary than your claim that it's incorrect without reasoning, examples or rationale.
Fact remains, no one has argued that Russell's trade is bad because they don't believe in the FO and whatever they might do is wrong. Maj has repeatedly said that he believes this trade forces us to go all in for PG, and that he doesn't believe that George will stay if we sign him anyway.
This is untrue. I call Majesty to witness that he did indeed say that he doesn't trust this front office and didn't trust them before this trade...
He can give any rationale he wants for not liking this particular trade but it does not refute my statement. You can disagree with the part about not giving them a chance and we can have that discussion but he did indeed have misgivings and mistrust of this Front Office long before this move.
I also don't trust this Front Office. I have said this multiple times. But I choose to give them 1 offseason to prove they can or can't handle the task...at least before I pass judgement on their first move.
Your caricature of Maj's position is laughable
Your use of the word "caricature" in light of Majesty's OVER REACTION is hilarious!!! LOL...it's like you're trolling Majesty now...
Majesty's reaction was severe. I don't think that saying "he doesn't trust the Front Office and won't give them a chance" is anything CLOSE to as laughable as his "opinions" since the Russell Trade.
You can't pretend he wasn't easily the most "upset" poster here and was told by MULTIPLE respected posters to "just calm down". Calling what I said a "caricature", which was meant to be a NICE description of his reaction, is kinda silly (no disrespect meant) and has no descriptive/evidentiary value without reference or context. If you think that your character statement does ANYTHING to refute the many pages of posts Majesty himself has made, you're wrong. If you want to defend him, do a better job and try not to pick arguments (Maj's position) you simply can't win...