HookEm

He would be a perfect final addition. He will be great to have in practice and if he is good enough, we can carve out 10-20 minutes.

SGA obviously. But you need multiple All-NBA caliber players to win a title these days. Maybe Giddy will get to that level - or Holmgren. But I think Zion has more upside than either of those guys and I'm not sure they would have to give up any of them to get him.

I would probably take the Jalen Williams side of that bet. Who has the better odds of being NBA MVP? Or Finals MVP? I would take Zion. Who has the potential to sell more tickets? Zion. Regardless though, if OKC loves Jalen Williams then don't include him in that trade. They have a lot of other assets. Throw in another couple of first rounders. Or add in Ousmane Dieng or Jaylin Williams or Aleksej Pokusevski. OKC has the young players and assets to put together a championship team. Zion still has a TON of runway in front of him. I would take a chance.

There is obviously a ton of uncertainty with Zion. But even in your reply you note that Jalen Williams MIGHT be an all-star. And the Clippers pick MIGHT be tasty. There is uncertainty with most picks and players in this range. I’m just going with the player who I know without a doubt has the highest ceiling. When Zion plays he has been very good, and he is still just 22 years old. At the same age, Joel Embiid had played a total of 30 games. Now he is the MVP.

OKC should package some picks up to get Zion. He still has the potential to be one of the best players in the NBA. I would try something like Saric + Tre Mann (2021 18th pick) + Jalen Williams (2022 12th pick) + 2024 Clippers 1st + 2025 76ers 1st (top-6 protected) + 2026 Clippers unprotected SGA, Dort, Giddy, Zion, Holmgren would be an awesome young core. And a Zion / Holmgren combo would be crazy to watch.

Anyone who argues with the call thinks the clock expired on Colt's incompletion in the 2009 UT vs. Nebraska game.

I think I see the problem now. You can't read. I said Butler's kick AIDED in moving Gordon. (And it obviously does if you watch the video). In typical internet fashion, you read that as "swept Gordon out of the way". In this case even moving a couple of inches changes the optics completely from being in Butler's landing area to being just outside it. (BTW - If someone's foot is approaching my nuts, I have the reaction time of a fuckin' olympic ping pong player. Like millisecond quickness.)

you sound mad

I'm not implying that Gordon "hopped back" as some sort of reaction. To me it looks like Butler's kick aided in moving Gordon to his final landing spot. But I disagree that he was never in Butler's landing area. Also for the record I don't really care. I'm not digging in, it is just how I see it and interpret the rules. You all are free to disagree. It was a call that could have gone a number of ways. Either foul on Gordon for being in Butler's landing area. Or a no call. Or an offensive / flagrant foul on Butler. If I'm a ref and have a situation like this, I will generally be biased to protect the shooter. When I was a player, literally nothing would piss me off more than a defender getting under me when I was in the air (resulting in countless twisted ankles). F defenders like that.

The difference with the Lavine call is that at no point was the defender anywhere close to being in his protected landing area. Gordon's foot was UNDER Butler until the kick moved him back out out of his space. The reason I posted screen shots is that it is hard to see in realtime when everyone just wants to focus on the extended leg. Regardless, the refs agree with me, so I must be right. Lol.

I guess I will be the lone dissenting opinion in thinking it was a foul on Gordon. As Butler was going up, Gordan was closing out on him hard coming from outside the 3-point line. He then jumps into Butler's protected landing space. After Butler kicks him, he then winds up back inside the 3-point line. To me, this is a pretty clear violation of the NBA rules protecting jump-shooters from being undercut. The video rule-book on the NBA site has some examples that are actually even less substantial than this one.

I like Aldridge, but I guess I'm a stickler in wanting the player to have been AWESOME when actually at Texas. I like the bar to jersey retirement being National Player of the Year. I MIGHT make an exception if they were 1st team All-American, the undisputed team leader, and led the team to a National Title.

That guy would be a great addition, but only if he is comfortable playing ~15 mpg. Maybe as a grad transfer he would be interested in a McCombs MBA or something and a light playing load.

Mid-90s Rockets or when?

I have been thinking CP3 for Smart would be a good trade for a while. Boston could use some veteran leadership. And Smart takes way too many end of game shots to be as inefficient as he is. And Phoenix needs perimeter defense and toughness. I think both teams would win more if they made it.

I'm not sure how much PT we have to give. Abmas has played ~36 mpg the last two years. Hunter needs 30+ minutes. Weaver played almost 30 mpg last year. Mitchell only got 17.5 mpg last year and is going to need more. Disu only got 19 mpg last year, but got 31 mpg at Vanderbilt. He needs more minutes. I can't see any way we have more than 18 mpg available - and even that is stretching it a ton. Here is what that might look like: We aren't going to get an elite player who will be happy playing that few minutes... and it also results in too few minutes for our good players. So I would rather get a mature veteran transfer like Tristen Licon who will be a good culture / practice guy and give us 5-8 mpg as needed. Or a young, raw player (like Anamekwe) who can get the same amount of time, but develop into a contributor next year.

The best Carr ever did was average 19 points a game on 45.1 eFG%. He was definitely a great scorer. That said, Aßmas is on a different level. He averaged 24.5 points on 58.3 eFG%. He also shot 43% from 3 one year on over 8 attempts per game. And he also did it in the tournament, earning NCAA All Region honors. d Whether he can do it in the Big-12 is debatable, but he will also have much better surrounding teammates.

As far as starters go: Last year: Hunter + Mitchell + Disu + Carr + Allen This year: Hunter + Mitchell + Disu + Aßmas + Shedrick I would say advantage 2024. Hunter, Disu and Mitchell will all be better with another year of experience. Maybe a lot better. Aßmas is a slight upgrade over Carr in my opinion. His defense won't be as good, but he is a better shooter and scorer. Allen and Shedrick is probably a wash. Obviously they play different positions, but we are basically swapping one for the other in the starting lineup. Allen is more skilled, but was basically a power forward trapped in a small forward's body. He can't really shoot from deep, so we lose nothing there. And he can't really bang with the big guys. Shedrick is a better free throw shooter (79% vs. 69%), a better rebounder, and a MUCH better interior defender. It also lets Disu move to the 4 where he is better. I would expect more 3s from Disu this year for that reason. The main loss from last year is Rice.

Does anyone have access to stats showing Texas' various lineups used last year (with minutes, +/-, etc.)?

I guess I have assumed all along that Shedrick will be starting, but now I'm not sure. He started 19 and 15 games for Virginia in the last two years, respectively. I couldn't imagine him leaving an elite program as a starter to come to Texas and play off the bench. He also mentioned wanting a bigger role as a primary reason for why he left. But I agree with everyone that getting a versatile guard/forward who can shoot 3s and score off the dribble (while playing defense) - and moving Mitchell & Disu from the 3/4 to the 4/5 seems like a better potential team. That said, there is nothing preventing us from going to a 3-guard lineup for long stretches of the game with our current roster. I assume that both Weaver and Cunningham will get plenty of run at SF - and both of them have shot over 40% from 3. That could move Mitchell and Disu to the 4/5 during those periods. This could be a nice lineup: Aßmas + Weaver + Cunningham + Mitchell + Disu Or go small for stetches and haves shooters errywhere. We had a similar lineup last year with Cunningham playing the 4 and Disu at the 5 that was effective. Hunter + Aßmas + Weaver + Cunningham + Disu

Nope

That group shoots better than you are giving them credit for. Disu shot 37% from 3 on 3.8 attempts per game at Vandy. He can shoot. Shedrick is an 80% free throw shooter as a big man. He only shot 7 3s in his 76 games at Vandy. It just wasn't part of their gameplan. But I would be shocked if he isn't at least above average in the midrange if he can shoot free throws at that rate. I mean he shot ~65% from the floor last year and it wasn't just dunks. Abmas and Weaver are plenty deadly from outside though. That will open everything else up. Brock as well.

I flipped the script, lol. That is my conference minute allotment.

Mitchell would give us a lot of versatility. With him playing "small" forward that gives us a ton of size in the starting lineup. I doubt we would play zone, but a bottom 3 of Mitchell and Disu on the outside with Shedrick in the middle would be sick defensively. I would expect to see Mitchell make as big of a leap as Disu did last year. Maybe a bigger one. Getting him back would be absolutely huge. A lineup of Hunter, Abmas, Mitchell, Disu and Shedrick will be a problem for anyone. And then Cunningham, Weaver and Onyema off the bench is very solid. I don't think we really need anyone else outside of maybe a bench guard who can give us 10 mpg. Here is a guess at how the minutes would shake out in a tight conference game: