With the NBA offseason mostly settled (?), we have started a series where we look back and gauge some of the best and worst offseasons of the summer.
Today is a positive outlook. In fact, it's so rosy that we can hear Judy Garland and Sean Marks signing in harmony "Somewhere over the rainbow -- bluebirds fly. Birds fly over the rainbow. Why then, oh, why can't I?""
######EXECUTIVE PRECISION: BROOKLYN NETS
PART ONE: THE WIZARD OF OZ
There's no (M)GM lionized like Sam Hinkie on this sub, and he deserves a lot of that acclaim. After all, he took a mediocre team, blew it up, and rebuilt a winner from the ground up.
That said, Brooklyn Nets GM Sean Marks may have had an even more difficult challenge on his hands. Born in New Zealand (which is close to Australia's "Oz"), Marks inherited a franchise that had less basketball talent than Munchkinland. Previous GM Billy King cashed in the entire future for a chance to build a veteran winner, but that roster imploded faster than a wicked witch.
As ill-advised as the deal may have been, no one could have known just how badly it'd end up. In his last season in Boston, Kevin Garnett averaged a respectable 14.8 points with a true shooting percentage of 53.5%. The very next year in Brooklyn? He averaged 6.5 points with a true shooting percentage of 46.7%. Similarly, Paul Pierce dropped like a rock, going from 18.6 PPG in Boston to 13.5 PPG in his first year in Brooklyn. The fact that his new Celtics started to age as gracefully as fruit flies ruined what was (on paper) a good collection of vets: Deron Williams, Joe Johnson, Brook Lopez, plus KG and Pierce. And as a result, all those sacrificed R1 picks turned into pure gold for Boston.
Enter Sean Marks. He took over a roster that finished 21-61, and had a bare cupboard when it came to the draft (after King had sacrificed 4 first round picks.) Despite that impossible challenge, Marks has done a brilliant job of replenishing the soil from that scorched earth. He nailed the coaching hire (with anonymous Hawks assistant Kenny Atkinson), and utilized his remaining cap space in smart ways (using it to draw in assets.) Moreover, he demonstrated an astute eye for talent. He bought low on D'Angelo Russell, gave an opportunity to "scrubs" like Spencer Dinwiddie and Joe Harris, and drafted sleepers like Caris LeVert (pick # 20), and Jarrett Allen (pick # 22.)
While the plan c
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Keeping with my minimal style and interest in the OG ultralight methods of yesteryear, I decided to try my hand at another shelter. Unlike my last one, this one is fully enclosed with a floor, zippered door, and everything. I did not follow any pattern, but the design is based off of Henry Shire's earlier designs.
Pictures: https://imgur.com/a/kI7QwBj
Materials:
- 3yds Membrane Silpoly (Foliage) for body
- 3yds Membrane Silpoly (Burnt Orange) for floor and stuff sack
- 3 yds .9oz No-Seeum Mesh for bug netting
- #3 YKK Zipper
- Gutterman Mara 70 (Bright Orange)
The body of the tarp is 5 feet wide at the head end and 4 feet wide at the foot end. It is 9 feet in length, with a 18 inch hex cut on the head end to put the door at an angle so that the head of the tarp serves as its own awning for the door. The floor is 32 inches wide at the head and 22 inches wide at the foot end. The peak height of the at the head end is 34 inches tall and the rear peak height is 20 inches (allowing for clearance for those of us with the most hobbit-like of feet).
The result is indeed a very minimal shelter. Plenty of length for anyone under 6' + a relatively small pack inside. And while on a 2 inch air mattress, there was just enough room to not be rubbing against the walls. The perimeter mesh and full mesh windows on head and foot ends allow for good ventilation. Plus, at a scant 9oz those $400+ DCF shelters can bite my tuchus.
It's impossible to imagine what Hollywood movies would be like without this film! Star Wars, for example, took some inspiration from it. And Star Wars became the template for many "heros journey" blockbuster movies where a motley crew set off to achieve something. Watching Oz today it is easy to compare it with Avengers and other Marvel films in the character dynamics and overall structure. So influential and timeless.
Because it keeps getting referred to as a remake...
But it’s being made by New Line Cinema, not MGM....
But on the 1939 film Wikipedia page it says the film is being remade...
Is it a real remake or is it just another adaptation?
