Discussion:
So much for getting under the cap.
(too old to reply)
Glenn Greenstein
2008-05-13 13:07:33 UTC
Permalink
http://tinyurl.com/496psx

Not that Barbosa or Diaw are bad additions, but this move is not going to
get you to where Walsh suggested earlier in terms of 2010.
On another note, how likely does anyone here think that Bosh, James, or
whoever the Knicks look to make a move for are just going to be let loose to
join the Knicks. These players are key blocks on their respective teams.
Wouldn't it be a huge loss and step backwards for the said team to allow
such a talent to leave? I'm not saying it never happens, even Shaq got
traded while he was still winning rings, but I would doubt Cleveland would
allow LeBron to go anywhere.
Doctor Chen
2008-05-13 13:32:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:07:33 GMT, "Glenn Greenstein"
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Not that Barbosa or Diaw are bad additions, but this move is not going to
get you to where Walsh suggested earlier in terms of 2010.
On another note, how likely does anyone here think that Bosh, James, or
whoever the Knicks look to make a move for are just going to be let loose to
join the Knicks. These players are key blocks on their respective teams.
Wouldn't it be a huge loss and step backwards for the said team to allow
such a talent to leave? I'm not saying it never happens, even Shaq got
traded while he was still winning rings, but I would doubt Cleveland would
allow LeBron to go anywhere.
When LeBron tells the Cavs that there's no way in hell he'll resign
with them once the contract's up, the Cavs will talk. Maybe not
exclusively with the Knicks but they'll start talking deal.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-13 17:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doctor Chen
When LeBron tells the Cavs that there's no way in hell he'll resign
with them once the contract's up, the Cavs will talk. Maybe not
exclusively with the Knicks but they'll start talking deal.
hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaa.......He's on the brink of winning
the East. Money (much like Jordan) is not an issue so much because
his contract is just a small part of his income. I don't see him
coming to NY at all.
Noah
2008-05-13 16:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Oh, no. Here we go again. And Diaw's deal is terrible.
Pablo
2008-05-13 16:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Oh, no. Here we go again. And Diaw's deal is terrible.
As you said yourself, Noah, you might not want to believe everything you
read in the papers. That article referenced an unnamed "person close to
D'Antoni." Sounds like the same person who said Chicago was D'Antoni's
first choice, doesn't it?

Anyway, we'll know if the salary cap strategy has any legs if this
scenario ever gets past the realm of wild speculation.

=p=
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-13 17:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pablo
Post by Noah
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Oh, no. Here we go again. And Diaw's deal is terrible.
As you said yourself, Noah, you might not want to believe everything you
read in the papers. That article referenced an unnamed "person close to
D'Antoni." Sounds like the same person who said Chicago was D'Antoni's
first choice, doesn't it?
Anyway, we'll know if the salary cap strategy has any legs if this
scenario ever gets past the realm of wild speculation.
=p=
Agreed. That 22 Million contract expiration is very valuable to NY.
I think they buy him out just to get him out of there now and see what
happens in 09.....
Pablo
2008-05-13 19:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Rizzo
Post by Pablo
Post by Noah
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Oh, no. Here we go again. And Diaw's deal is terrible.
As you said yourself, Noah, you might not want to believe everything you
read in the papers. That article referenced an unnamed "person close to
D'Antoni." Sounds like the same person who said Chicago was D'Antoni's
first choice, doesn't it?
Anyway, we'll know if the salary cap strategy has any legs if this
scenario ever gets past the realm of wild speculation.
Agreed. That 22 Million contract expiration is very valuable to NY.
I think they buy him out just to get him out of there now and see what
happens in 09.....
A buyout would be fine, or a trade for D'Antoni-style players -- whose
contracts fit within the 2010 timeframe. If we can finagle a future
first-rounder in the deal, bring it on. Remember, our 2010 pick is going
to Utah (finalizing the Marbury trade), and the 2008 and 2009 second-round
picks are going to Portland and Chicago, respectively.

=p=
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-13 20:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pablo
Post by Frank Rizzo
Post by Pablo
Post by Noah
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Oh, no. Here we go again. And Diaw's deal is terrible.
As you said yourself, Noah, you might not want to believe everything you
read in the papers. That article referenced an unnamed "person close to
D'Antoni." Sounds like the same person who said Chicago was D'Antoni's
first choice, doesn't it?
Anyway, we'll know if the salary cap strategy has any legs if this
scenario ever gets past the realm of wild speculation.
Agreed. That 22 Million contract expiration is very valuable to NY.
I think they buy him out just to get him out of there now and see what
happens in 09.....
A buyout would be fine, or a trade for D'Antoni-style players -- whose
contracts fit within the 2010 timeframe. If we can finagle a future
first-rounder in the deal, bring it on. Remember, our 2010 pick is going
to Utah (finalizing the Marbury trade), and the 2008 and 2009 second-round
picks are going to Portland and Chicago, respectively.
=p=
Well let's take a look. Nate, Spell check, Crawford, Chandler, Mardy,
Freddie, Morris (If he's around), Lee, Q, Jeffries, can all play the
style of play that Mike plays in my opinion. Zach is tradeable
because he does score and rebound well. So essentially you're looking
at Marbury, Fried Twinkies, James, and Rose who don't fit. Rose and
Marbury are done after this year. James has another year. Curry has
a large box of donuts. Seriously, he's the biggest problem, but who
knows what will happen with him.

They could run:

Nate
Crawford
Chandler
Balkman
Lee

as a small lineup for 30 minutes as is. Or they could slide Lee to 4
and run Jeffries to the 5 spot. They have a very high draft pick that
should be no lower than 5 with a very deep draft. Bayless is a great
athlete who should be available at that spot, and can run PG. Eric
Gordon is a very strong G who will be available when they pick. They
could also go bick and draft a real NBA center like Brook Lopez who
can actually play the game, catch the ball, score, and move the
ball.

It is too early to say that they can't play D'Antoni's game. Crawford
especially will LOVE to play this game.
Noah
2008-05-14 08:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Rizzo
Nate
Crawford
Chandler
Balkman
Lee
as a small lineup for 30 minutes as is.  
And that's going to accomplish...?
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-14 16:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
Nate
Crawford
Chandler
Balkman
Lee
as a small lineup for 30 minutes as is.
And that's going to accomplish...?
I guess you'll have to wait and see, won't you.
Noah
2008-05-14 08:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pablo
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Oh, no.  Here we go again.  And Diaw's deal is terrible.
As you said yourself, Noah, you might not want to believe everything you
read in the papers.  
I'll wait, but that kind of story brings on a rather familiar sense of
Knick off-season nausea.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-13 17:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Oh, no. Here we go again. And Diaw's deal is terrible.
At least he can play. It's not like Jarred Jeffries deal where you
pay a shitload for someone who can't play.
Noah
2008-05-14 08:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Oh, no.  Here we go again.  And Diaw's deal is terrible.
At least he can play.  It's not like Jarred Jeffries deal where you
pay a shitload for someone who can't play.
It doesn't matter. "This shitty deal is better than that even
shittier deal" merit points are too little, too late at this juncture.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-13 17:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Not that Barbosa or Diaw are bad additions, but this move is not going to
get you to where Walsh suggested earlier in terms of 2010.
On another note, how likely does anyone here think that Bosh, James, or
whoever the Knicks look to make a move for are just going to be let loose to
join the Knicks. These players are key blocks on their respective teams.
Wouldn't it be a huge loss and step backwards for the said team to allow
such a talent to leave? I'm not saying it never happens, even Shaq got
traded while he was still winning rings, but I would doubt Cleveland would
allow LeBron to go anywhere.
Barbosa and Diaw for Marbury is laughable. I understand about
expiring contracts, but that is Phx completely tanking the season. I
don't believe this will come to pass.
J***@yahoo.com
2008-05-13 18:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Not that Barbosa or Diaw are bad additions, but this move is not going to
get you to where Walsh suggested earlier in terms of 2010.
On another note, how likely does anyone here think that Bosh, James, or
whoever the Knicks look to make a move for are just going to be let loose to
join the Knicks. These players are key blocks on their respective teams.
Wouldn't it be a huge loss and step backwards for the said team to allow
such a talent to leave? I'm not saying it never happens, even Shaq got
traded while he was still winning rings, but I would doubt Cleveland would
allow LeBron to go anywhere.
Anyone reporting this other than Lawrence, a guy who's been trying to
show for 3 days now that D'Antoni was the wrong hire ?

After the Isiah era, I'm not going to criticize the GM and coach for
"rumored" trades.
Terraholm
2008-05-13 20:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Not that Barbosa or Diaw are bad additions, but this move is not
going to get you to where Walsh suggested earlier in terms of 2010.
I would think it better to add two quality players now than to wait two
years and gamble on what kind of free agents they can attract.
Post by Glenn Greenstein
On another note, how likely does anyone here think that Bosh, James,
or whoever the Knicks look to make a move for are just going to be
let loose to join the Knicks. These players are key blocks on their
respective teams. Wouldn't it be a huge loss and step backwards for
the said team to allow such a talent to leave? I'm not saying it
never happens, even Shaq got traded while he was still winning rings,
but I would doubt Cleveland would allow LeBron to go anywhere.
If they opt out of their 17 mil final year they will be unrestricted free
agents and the raps and cavs would not have the final say.... If they walk
there is nothing they can do. They can offer more than other teams but if
they waited to be FAs likely that they want to leave would have already been
decided. ..
Much... much... more likely is they both sign extensions next year. Players
not dumb as a post with an agent in their ear are unlikely to turn down a
big extension when they never know if a career ending injury is happening
the next game...
--
Laurel T
"Every time 'Sheed took a shot he said
`Don't worry young fella, I get paid for this.
I get paid for doing this to you',"
- Kwame Brown
Noah
2008-05-14 08:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terraholm
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Not that Barbosa or Diaw are bad additions, but this move is not
going to get you to where Walsh suggested earlier in terms of 2010.
I would think it better to add two quality players now than to wait two
years and gamble on what kind of free agents they can attract.
Diaw's had exactly one good season after foundering in years in
Atlanta (at a time when they really stank, and when good players on
bad teams usually get an opportunity to flourish in losing efforts,
which he didn't manage to accomplish). He's signed at $9M per until
2012, and after getting said contract, played terrible most of this
season even with Nash feeding him. He's a Knick, all right.

Someone tells me how this makes sense for ANY agenda (rebuilding or
winning now). Better yet, someone tell me how this is any different
from any typical Layden or Thomas move. A $22M expiring for THAT?!?
When you're supposedly trying to get under the cap? Are we going to
bail Phoenix out yet again, to our continued detriment for years and
years more?
Dan Gaters
2008-05-14 09:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Someone tells me how this makes sense for ANY agenda
Run&gun in da house!

DG
Pablo
2008-05-14 15:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Terraholm
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Not that Barbosa or Diaw are bad additions, but this move is not
going to get you to where Walsh suggested earlier in terms of 2010.
I would think it better to add two quality players now than to wait two
years and gamble on what kind of free agents they can attract.
Someone tells me how this makes sense for ANY agenda (rebuilding or
winning now). Better yet, someone tell me how this is any different
from any typical Layden or Thomas move. A $22M expiring for THAT?!?
When you're supposedly trying to get under the cap? Are we going to
bail Phoenix out yet again, to our continued detriment for years and
years more?
It doesn't make sense, and it's not going to happen. I just posted about
an interview with Walsh, and although he didn't explicitly name Diaw and
Barbosa, he expressed the same ridicule about this trade as you're
feeling.

=p=
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-14 16:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Terraholm
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Not that Barbosa or Diaw are bad additions, but this move is not
going to get you to where Walsh suggested earlier in terms of 2010.
I would think it better to add two quality players now than to wait two
years and gamble on what kind of free agents they can attract.
Diaw's had exactly one good season after foundering in years in
Atlanta (at a time when they really stank, and when good players on
bad teams usually get an opportunity to flourish in losing efforts,
which he didn't manage to accomplish).
One good season? And how many years was he "foundering" in Atlanta?

He's signed at $9M per until
Post by Noah
2012, and after getting said contract, played terrible most of this
season even with Nash feeding him. He's a Knick, all right.
Someone tells me how this makes sense for ANY agenda (rebuilding or
winning now). Better yet, someone tell me how this is any different
from any typical Layden or Thomas move. A $22M expiring for THAT?!?
When you're supposedly trying to get under the cap? Are we going to
bail Phoenix out yet again, to our continued detriment for years and
years more?
What is your definition of a good season? Does a player have to score
20+ a game for a good season when Nash is feeding him? Nash was
second in assists this year to Paul. Paul was feeding Chandler. Did
he have a good season? Did Peja? What is a good season?
Noah
2008-05-14 16:41:45 UTC
Permalink
One good season?  And how many years was he "foundering" in Atlanta?
Three, I believe.
What is your definition of a good season?  
Playing intelligent basketball and pulling your weight as to your role
on a team. Missing point-blank jumpers and pick and rolls that were
run for you while playing indifferent defense is not my definition of
a good season.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-14 18:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
One good season? And how many years was he "foundering" in Atlanta?
Three, I believe.
Post by Frank Rizzo
What is your definition of a good season?
Playing intelligent basketball and pulling your weight as to your role
on a team. Missing point-blank jumpers and pick and rolls that were
run for you while playing indifferent defense is not my definition of
a good season.
I agree with this definition. I don't think it applies. What is a
point blank jumper and what 6'8" and above player shoots a jumper from
point blank?
Noah
2008-05-15 09:02:15 UTC
Permalink
I agree with this definition.  I don't think it applies.  What is a
point blank jumper and what 6'8" and above player shoots a jumper from
point blank?
Let's cut out all the beating around the bush. Do you honestly
believe Boris Diaw just had a good season?
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-15 15:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
I agree with this definition. I don't think it applies. What is a
point blank jumper and what 6'8" and above player shoots a jumper from
point blank?
Let's cut out all the beating around the bush. Do you honestly
believe Boris Diaw just had a good season?
No. I just don't extrapolate that into him being a piece of shit like
you did.
Noah
2008-05-15 17:31:15 UTC
Permalink
I agree with this definition.  I don't think it applies.  What is a
point blank jumper and what 6'8" and above player shoots a jumper from
point blank?
Let's cut out all the beating around the bush.  Do you honestly
believe Boris Diaw just had a good season?
No.  I just don't extrapolate that into him being a piece of shit like
you did.
I did not call him a piece of shit. I called acquiring him for $9M
per season until 2012 in exchange for our desperately needed ability
to get under the cap a really dumb move. (Yes, folks, I'm aware it's
probably not really going to happen, which is good).
m***@gmail.com
2008-05-13 21:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Not that Barbosa or Diaw are bad additions, but this move is not going to
get you to where Walsh suggested earlier in terms of 2010.
On another note, how likely does anyone here think that Bosh, James, or
whoever the Knicks look to make a move for are just going to be let loose to
join the Knicks. These players are key blocks on their respective teams.
Wouldn't it be a huge loss and step backwards for the said team to allow
such a talent to leave? I'm not saying it never happens, even Shaq got
traded while he was still winning rings, but I would doubt Cleveland would
allow LeBron to go anywhere.
The guy we should look to move, imo, is Crawford since his contract is
long and he has some value _as a player_ whereas Marbury likely
doesn't. Something along the lines of Crawford for Barbosa + change
would suit me well.

I heard a rumor of a Crawford for TJ Ford deal yesterday. Not that I
think that deal has a chance in hell of happening but I would love
love love it if it did. TJ Ford just strikes me as a guy that could
flourish in a D'Antoni offense.

Obviously Zach and Curry would be prime targets to GTFO as well but
they will have more value as their deals shorten a bit.
Pablo
2008-05-13 22:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
I heard a rumor of a Crawford for TJ Ford deal yesterday. Not that I
think that deal has a chance in hell of happening but I would love
love love it if it did. TJ Ford just strikes me as a guy that could
flourish in a D'Antoni offense.
Noooo!!!

TJ Ford extends through 2011 (the last year is a player option, but with
Ford's injury woes, there's a decent chance he'll be exercising it).

I hereby declare all proposed trade scenarios should be checked against
hoopshype.com's published player salaries. That goes for Walsh, too. ;-)

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/toronto.htm

=p=
Capn'O
2008-05-13 22:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pablo
Post by m***@gmail.com
I heard a rumor of a Crawford for TJ Ford deal yesterday. Not that I
think that deal has a chance in hell of happening but I would love
love love it if it did. TJ Ford just strikes me as a guy that could
flourish in a D'Antoni offense.
Noooo!!!
TJ Ford extends through 2011 (the last year is a player option, but with
Ford's injury woes, there's a decent chance he'll be exercising it).
I hereby declare all proposed trade scenarios should be checked against
hoopshype.com's published player salaries. That goes for Walsh, too. ;-)
http://hoopshype.com/salaries/toronto.htm
=p=
Ditto Jamal... except TJ is slightly cheaper. I mean, technically
Jamal can opt out in two seasons but not bloody likely in his case
either. Do you think his value on the open market is above $10
million?

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/new_york.htm

It's a somewhat lateral move salarywise but for a better fitting
part... for the lynchpin of our offense. I'd rather Derrick Rose but
that move would be based on a "lucky" bounce.
Noah
2008-05-14 09:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capn'O
I'd rather Derrick Rose but
that move would be based on a "lucky" bounce.
Barring a shocker, he'll be in Miami.
Pablo
2008-05-14 15:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capn'O
Post by Pablo
Post by m***@gmail.com
I heard a rumor of a Crawford for TJ Ford deal yesterday. Not that I
think that deal has a chance in hell of happening but I would love
love love it if it did. TJ Ford just strikes me as a guy that could
flourish in a D'Antoni offense.
Noooo!!!
TJ Ford extends through 2011 (the last year is a player option, but with
Ford's injury woes, there's a decent chance he'll be exercising it).
I hereby declare all proposed trade scenarios should be checked against
hoopshype.com's published player salaries. That goes for Walsh, too. ;-)
http://hoopshype.com/salaries/toronto.htm
=p=
Ditto Jamal... except TJ is slightly cheaper. I mean, technically
Jamal can opt out in two seasons but not bloody likely in his case
either. Do you think his value on the open market is above $10
million?
http://hoopshype.com/salaries/new_york.htm
It's a somewhat lateral move salarywise but for a better fitting
part... for the lynchpin of our offense. I'd rather Derrick Rose but
that move would be based on a "lucky" bounce.
This is me being sheepish. =)

I do think there's a possibility Jamal opts out, especially if he thrives
in D'Antoni's offense. $10 million is about right for a proven scorer in
today's salary landscape. But point taken.

=p=
Noah
2008-05-14 09:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
The guy we should look to move, imo, is Crawford since his contract is
long and he has some value _as a player_ whereas Marbury likely
doesn't. Something along the lines of Crawford for Barbosa + change
would suit me well.
Word. But Kerr isn't that dumb.
Post by m***@gmail.com
I heard a rumor of a Crawford for TJ Ford deal yesterday. Not that I
think that deal has a chance in hell of happening but I would love
love love it if it did. TJ Ford just strikes me as a guy that could
flourish in a D'Antoni offense.
I like it. Toronto's got a logjam at PG. But they'll only do it if
they get Lee.
Capn'O
2008-05-15 00:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by m***@gmail.com
The guy we should look to move, imo, is Crawford since his contract is
long and he has some value _as a player_ whereas Marbury likely
doesn't. Something along the lines of Crawford for Barbosa + change
would suit me well.
Word. But Kerr isn't that dumb.
You know, normally I'd agree with you but after that Shaq trade he
does seem, well, kinda dumb.
Post by Noah
Post by m***@gmail.com
I heard a rumor of a Crawford for TJ Ford deal yesterday. Not that I
think that deal has a chance in hell of happening but I would love
love love it if it did. TJ Ford just strikes me as a guy that could
flourish in a D'Antoni offense.
I like it. Toronto's got a logjam at PG. But they'll only do it if
they get Lee.
Maybe. TJ's coming off of a huge injury and Crawford fills a position
of need and, they NEED scoring. I wouldn't include Lee, that's for
sure.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-15 04:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capn'O
Post by Noah
Post by m***@gmail.com
The guy we should look to move, imo, is Crawford since his contract is
long and he has some value _as a player_ whereas Marbury likely
doesn't. Something along the lines of Crawford for Barbosa + change
would suit me well.
Word. But Kerr isn't that dumb.
You know, normally I'd agree with you but after that Shaq trade he
does seem, well, kinda dumb.
Look at it this way. He HAD TO trade Marion. Had to. Marion was a
problem by that point (off the court) and it was affecting morale.
So, who do you trade Marion for? They gambled on Shaq. They needed a
big man to compete with Duncan. If it works, they get past SA. If it
doesn't, the dollars come off the books in another year. If they had
traded for multiple players they would have been stuck with at least
some long term money and a substandard player. Could they have traded
for Marbury? Sure. Would that have been worse? YES.

I think Kerr took a calculated risk and it didn't work out optimally,
but it didn't kill them either. They still have a good team, one of
the top ten centers, a top PG, a top PF.

Rizzo
Dan Gaters
2008-05-15 04:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Rizzo
So, who do you trade Marion for?
E. Curry?

Isiah called, says hi.

DG
Noah
2008-05-15 09:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Look at it this way.  He HAD TO trade Marion.  Had to.
See: Bryant, Kobe. Kupchak, Mitch.
So, who do you trade Marion for?  They gambled on Shaq.  They needed a
big man to compete with Duncan.  If it works, they get past SA.  If it
doesn't, the dollars come off the books in another year.  
Huh? Shaq's got two more years at $20M per. That's a lot of money to
go backwards. The Suns' window was last year. Next year Nash and
Shaq are 34 and 37, Marion's gone, and there's a new coach. Suns vs.
Spurs in 2007 was riveting...but it's over. It carried over to
exactly one game this season (Suns-Spurs 2008, playoffs game 1).
Granted, it was the best basketball game of the year so far and will
likely continue to be, but it was one game.
If they had
traded for multiple players they would have been stuck with at least
some long term money and a substandard player.  Could they have traded
for Marbury?  Sure.  Would that have been worse?  YES.
Nah. $22M for cap relief isn't anything to shake a tailfeather at.
It would be sweetly ironic (for Phoenix -- not so sweet for Knicks
fans) if they'd profited from trading that Marbury contract back and
forth TWICE and taken all the fruit out of it on either end. Think
about it -- Marbury would allow the Suns to rebuild not once but TWICE
in a five year span!
I think Kerr took a calculated risk and it didn't work out optimally,
but it didn't kill them either.  They still have a good team, one of
the top ten centers, a top PG, a top PF.
Maybe if someone else gets the Spurs out of their way. I agree that
with or without Shaq, the Suns were going to lose to the Spurs, as
they always have. Amare can score a lot but he doesn't have the first
clue how to set up for people defensively. That's why Duncan had such
an easy time with him. It wasn't ever a close battle when it was one
on one in that series. The very best the Suns ever did against Duncan
was to put Kurt Thomas on him, and then they let Thomas go play next
to TD the very next season. Not smart.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-15 15:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
Look at it this way. He HAD TO trade Marion. Had to.
See: Bryant, Kobe. Kupchak, Mitch.
That is not an honest comparison. You're talking about the best
player in the game vs. the #3 player on a team.
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
So, who do you trade Marion for? They gambled on Shaq. They needed a
big man to compete with Duncan. If it works, they get past SA. If it
doesn't, the dollars come off the books in another year.
Huh? Shaq's got two more years at $20M per. That's a lot of money to
go backwards. The Suns' window was last year. Next year Nash and
Shaq are 34 and 37, Marion's gone, and there's a new coach. Suns vs.
Spurs in 2007 was riveting...but it's over. It carried over to
exactly one game this season (Suns-Spurs 2008, playoffs game 1).
Granted, it was the best basketball game of the year so far and will
likely continue to be, but it was one game.
Right. And they weren't going to compete this year either, with
Marion. Yet now, when Nash and Shaq are done, 35 million come off the
books at the same time. They are still a playoff team, step backwards
or not.
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
If they had
traded for multiple players they would have been stuck with at least
some long term money and a substandard player. Could they have traded
for Marbury? Sure. Would that have been worse? YES.
Nah. $22M for cap relief isn't anything to shake a tailfeather at.
It would be sweetly ironic (for Phoenix -- not so sweet for Knicks
fans) if they'd profited from trading that Marbury contract back and
forth TWICE and taken all the fruit out of it on either end. Think
about it -- Marbury would allow the Suns to rebuild not once but TWICE
in a five year span!
Post by Frank Rizzo
I think Kerr took a calculated risk and it didn't work out optimally,
but it didn't kill them either. They still have a good team, one of
the top ten centers, a top PG, a top PF.
Maybe if someone else gets the Spurs out of their way. I agree that
with or without Shaq, the Suns were going to lose to the Spurs, as
they always have. Amare can score a lot but he doesn't have the first
clue how to set up for people defensively. That's why Duncan had such
an easy time with him. It wasn't ever a close battle when it was one
on one in that series. The very best the Suns ever did against Duncan
was to put Kurt Thomas on him, and then they let Thomas go play next
to TD the very next season. Not smart.
Suns weren't going to beat N.O., Utah, or LA with Marion either. As
you said, their window has closed. They just improved their timing on
the cap space.
Noah
2008-05-15 17:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Look at it this way.  He HAD TO trade Marion.  Had to.
See: Bryant, Kobe.  Kupchak, Mitch.
That is not an honest comparison.  You're talking about the best
player in the game vs. the #3 player on a team.
I'm not comparing the players' skill -- I'm comparing the situation.
I thought Kobe's summer more of a HAD to situation for the GM than
Marion being unhappy with his role. Cut to what happened -- team
keeps the player against his wishes, at the risk of having him mail it
in or worse, and lo and behold the player has what might be his best
season of an illustrious career, wins the MVP and is probably taking
his team to the finals.

Would all of that have happened with Marion? Probably not, but it
definitely is food for thought before insisting that Kerr HAD to trade
Marion.
Right.  And they weren't going to compete this year either, with
Marion.  Yet now, when Nash and Shaq are done, 35 million come off the
books at the same time.  They are still a playoff team, step backwards
or not.
Sure...they can rebuild in 2010. However, that team was not content
to make the playoffs. They want a title, but they're not going to get
one now until they rebuild yet again. As I said, I think the window
closed on that last year. That was their shot.
Suns weren't going to beat N.O., Utah, or LA with Marion either.  As
you said, their window has closed.  They just improved their timing on
the cap space.
You're missing something obvious here. Before the trade, they would
have only had to pay Marion $17M for one more season. Now they have
to pay Shaq $20M for two more seasons. Explain to me how that
improves their timing on clearing their cap?!?
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-15 18:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
Look at it this way. He HAD TO trade Marion. Had to.
See: Bryant, Kobe. Kupchak, Mitch.
That is not an honest comparison. You're talking about the best
player in the game vs. the #3 player on a team.
I'm not comparing the players' skill -- I'm comparing the situation.
I thought Kobe's summer more of a HAD to situation for the GM than
Marion being unhappy with his role.
I guess Hubie Brown, Kenny Smith, Larry Biel, Ric Bucher and me are
all wrong about the urgency of the move. You're right.
Post by Noah
Would all of that have happened with Marion? Probably not, but it
definitely is food for thought before insisting that Kerr HAD to trade
Marion.
Comparing one or two tirades that Kobe had after a disappointing
season is inaccurate. Marion has asked to be traded consistently for
a couple years now and became a disruptive presence by all accounts
(except yours of course).
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
Right. And they weren't going to compete this year either, with
Marion. Yet now, when Nash and Shaq are done, 35 million come off the
books at the same time. They are still a playoff team, step backwards
or not.
Sure...they can rebuild in 2010. However, that team was not content
to make the playoffs. They want a title, but they're not going to get
one now until they rebuild yet again.
Wanting a title is not going to make it happen. They had their
chance, like the Kings before them. It didn't happen. They are
getting old. Time to rebuild.

As I said, I think the window
Post by Noah
closed on that last year. That was their shot.
Post by Frank Rizzo
Suns weren't going to beat N.O., Utah, or LA with Marion either. As
you said, their window has closed. They just improved their timing on
the cap space.
You're missing something obvious here. Before the trade, they would
have only had to pay Marion $17M for one more season. Now they have
to pay Shaq $20M for two more seasons. Explain to me how that
improves their timing on clearing their cap?!?
Timing. Nash and Shaq come off the books at the same time.
Flexibility. THINK, Noah, THINK.
Noah
2008-05-16 19:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Rizzo
Post by Noah
I'm not comparing the players' skill -- I'm comparing the situation.
I thought Kobe's summer more of a HAD to situation for the GM than
Marion being unhappy with his role.
I guess Hubie Brown, Kenny Smith, Larry Biel, Ric Bucher and me are
all wrong about the urgency of the move.  You're right.
Name-dropping doesn't make a compelling, successful argument (or ANY
argument for that matter).
Post by Frank Rizzo
Post by Noah
Would all of that have happened with Marion?  Probably not, but it
definitely is food for thought before insisting that Kerr HAD to trade
Marion.
Comparing one or two tirades that Kobe had after a disappointing
season is inaccurate.  Marion has asked to be traded consistently for
a couple years now and became a disruptive presence by all accounts
(except yours of course).
"One or two tirades"? You're having a selective memory. And don't
put words in my mouth. I never commented on what kind of presence
Marion was and whether or not he wanted to be traded -- I commented
that Marion for Shaq was a dumb deal and that Kobe is just one shining
example of how sometimes you have another option besides giving in to
your players' trade demands, especially when their deal expires the
next season anyway. They seemed to be winning fine with Marion and
his "disruptive presence" around.
Post by Frank Rizzo
Post by Noah
You're missing something obvious here.  Before the trade, they would
have only had to pay Marion $17M for one more season.  Now they have
to pay Shaq $20M for two more seasons.  Explain to me how that
improves their timing on clearing their cap?!?
Timing.  Nash and Shaq come off the books at the same time.
Flexibility.  THINK, Noah, THINK.
And having them both come off the books in 2010 is more flexible and
somehow better than having one come off in 2009 and one come off in
2010? Beg pardon, but I don't believe I'm the one not doing the
thinking.

Simply put, your argument that it's better to pay a player that you
don't want/doesn't fit into your system $20M for two years rather than
one -- and have that player tie up the cap for an extra season -- is
ludicrous.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-16 20:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
Post by Noah
I'm not comparing the players' skill -- I'm comparing the situation.
I thought Kobe's summer more of a HAD to situation for the GM than
Marion being unhappy with his role.
I guess Hubie Brown, Kenny Smith, Larry Biel, Ric Bucher and me are
all wrong about the urgency of the move. You're right.
Name-dropping doesn't make a compelling, successful argument (or ANY
argument for that matter).
It is not "Name dropping" it is citing credible, informed sources that
agreed with the deal when it happened. It would be name dropping if I
said I hung out with them. MORON. Learn something.
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
Post by Noah
Would all of that have happened with Marion? Probably not, but it
definitely is food for thought before insisting that Kerr HAD to trade
Marion.
Comparing one or two tirades that Kobe had after a disappointing
season is inaccurate. Marion has asked to be traded consistently for
a couple years now and became a disruptive presence by all accounts
(except yours of course).
"One or two tirades"? You're having a selective memory. And don't
put words in my mouth. I never commented on what kind of presence
Marion was and whether or not he wanted to be traded --
You disputed whether he had to be traded, which is a de-facto
statement that his presence was tolerable. It wasn't.


I commented
Post by Noah
that Marion for Shaq was a dumb deal and that Kobe is just one shining
example of how sometimes you have another option besides giving in to
your players' trade demands, especially when their deal expires the
next season anyway. They seemed to be winning fine with Marion and
his "disruptive presence" around.
Post by Frank Rizzo
Post by Noah
You're missing something obvious here. Before the trade, they would
have only had to pay Marion $17M for one more season. Now they have
to pay Shaq $20M for two more seasons. Explain to me how that
improves their timing on clearing their cap?!?
Timing. Nash and Shaq come off the books at the same time.
Flexibility. THINK, Noah, THINK.
And having them both come off the books in 2010 is more flexible and
somehow better than having one come off in 2009 and one come off in
2010? Beg pardon, but I don't believe I'm the one not doing the
thinking.
If you cannot see how having 30 Million cap space all at once gives
you more flexibility in building a 15 man roster than having 20 one
year and 10 the next, you are not worthy of having this conversation,
at all. Now I understand why Greenspan has you blocked.

Rizzo
Noah
2008-05-16 22:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Rizzo
It is not "Name dropping" it is citing credible, informed sources that
agreed with the deal when it happened.  It would be name dropping if I
said I hung out with them.  MORON.  Learn something.
You can cite whoever you want to say that they agreed with you, but if
you don't present a point or a case of what they agreed with and why,
I don't see a credible argument. Just saying "because I heard someone
say it on ESPN" isn't enough. And there's no need to get personal and
nasty and insulting. It's a discussion about basketball.
Post by Frank Rizzo
You disputed whether he had to be traded, which is a de-facto
statement that his presence was tolerable.  It wasn't.
Tolerable to whom? And how do you know that? Because Kenny Smith and
Ric Bucher said they thought so?
Post by Frank Rizzo
If you cannot see how having 30 Million cap space all at once gives
you more flexibility in building a 15 man roster than having 20 one
year and 10 the next, you are not worthy of having this conversation,
at all. Now I understand why Greenspan has you blocked.
And if you can't see that cutting $20M in 2009 and $13M in 2010 adds
up to the EXACT SAME $33M in 2010 -- all at once -- as it would if
both players came off the cap at the same time, you really shouldn't
be calling OTHER people morons.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-17 05:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
It is not "Name dropping" it is citing credible, informed sources that
agreed with the deal when it happened. It would be name dropping if I
said I hung out with them. MORON. Learn something.
You can cite whoever you want to say that they agreed with you, but if
you don't present a point or a case of what they agreed with and why,
I don't see a credible argument. Just saying "because I heard someone
say it on ESPN" isn't enough. And there's no need to get personal and
nasty and insulting. It's a discussion about basketball.
You're right about the insult. Sorry.

What I said was that he needed to be moved because of his constant
demands ,and that the analysts ALL said the same thing. That IS the
point. The rest is moot. Unless you are aware that there was a better
deal to be had, you don't have a credible argument.
Noah
2008-05-17 07:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Rizzo
You're right about the insult. Sorry.
What I said was that he needed to be moved because of his constant
demands ,and that the analysts ALL said the same thing. That IS the
point. The rest is moot. Unless you are aware that there was a better
deal to be had, you don't have a credible argument.
For all his complaining and demanding and unhappiness, and regardless
of what the analysts might have said, Marion was still playing great
basketball for Phoenix and was their best defender -- sometimes
running the transition D by himself. He had one and a half seasons
left on his contract. If they were going to accept that their shot
was pretty much done and that it was time to rebuild, they could have
hung onto him (even if they sent him away from the team with Steve
Francis style "tendinitis", which I doubt it would have come to) and
had the bulk of the cap space a year earlier, or saved it up for the
bulk cap drop in 2010 that you suggest. Either option seems smarter
to me than paying Shaq $20M per season for two and a half seasons at
this point in his career, which was a losing gamble that is now going
to burn them (no pun intended) and delay rebuilding.
Dan Gaters
2008-05-17 07:48:37 UTC
Permalink
his constant demands
BTW, why was he unhappy there?

DG
Noah
2008-05-17 09:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Gaters
his constant demands
BTW, why was he unhappy there?
DG
The media had it that he was upset that he wasn't more of a focal
point of the offense. Who knows if that was really it or not.
Obviously, there were some further issues beyond Marion, since there
were regular reports of a generally unhappy locker room in Phoenix,
and that the coach left a regular 50-odd win team to go to a 23-win
team in shambles.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-18 04:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Gaters
his constant demands
BTW, why was he unhappy there?
DG
No idea. Seems crazy. You never know though, unless you are
there....Maybe he didn't like being the #3 guy.
Capn'O
2008-05-17 14:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
It is not "Name dropping" it is citing credible, informed sources that
agreed with the deal when it happened.  It would be name dropping if I
said I hung out with them.  MORON.  Learn something.
You can cite whoever you want to say that they agreed with you, but if
you don't present a point or a case of what they agreed with and why,
I don't see a credible argument.  Just saying "because I heard someone
say it on ESPN" isn't enough.  And there's no need to get personal and
nasty and insulting.  It's a discussion about basketball.
You're right about the insult.  Sorry.
What I said was that he needed to be moved because of his constant
demands ,and that the analysts ALL said the same thing.  That IS the
point.  The rest is moot. Unless you are aware that there was a better
deal to be had, you don't have a credible argument.
This is Isiah Thomas thinking. I don't see the urgency of acting
immediately. If that was the best deal out there then wait. Privately
tell Marion you will satisfy his demands in the offseason and wait
until then. As one year sheds from his contract and teams consider how
they need to retool a whole new slew of trade possibilities are out
there. Good GMs never panic. Look at the Iverson deal. For all his
prior mistakes, Billy King waited until the _right_ deal was on the
table for the franchise... Look at the Kidd deal too. Both of these
guys were making more public disruptions than Marion and both GMs made
out like bandits in those deals. Hell, even look at the Lakers' Shaq
trade. I suppose it's easier to make a deal like that when your team
sucks and the stakes are lower but honestly the Shaq deal just made no
sense from a bball standpoint and could have made more financial sense
too imo.

I understand Kerr's reasoning but the move smacks of desparation to me
and Riley swooped in and capitalized. Just because you have reasons
doesn't mean they are the right ones.
Noah
2008-05-17 19:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capn'O
This is Isiah Thomas thinking. I don't see the urgency of acting
immediately. If that was the best deal out there then wait. Privately
tell Marion you will satisfy his demands in the offseason and wait
until then. As one year sheds from his contract and teams consider how
they need to retool a whole new slew of trade possibilities are out
there. Good GMs never panic. Look at the Iverson deal. For all his
prior mistakes, Billy King waited until the _right_ deal was on the
table for the franchise... Look at the Kidd deal too. Both of these
guys were making more public disruptions than Marion and both GMs made
out like bandits in those deals.
I understand Kerr's reasoning but the move smacks of desparation to me
and Riley swooped in and capitalized. Just because you have reasons
doesn't mean they are the right ones.
Thank you.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-18 04:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capn'O
Post by Frank Rizzo
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
It is not "Name dropping" it is citing credible, informed sources that
agreed with the deal when it happened. It would be name dropping if I
said I hung out with them. MORON. Learn something.
You can cite whoever you want to say that they agreed with you, but if
you don't present a point or a case of what they agreed with and why,
I don't see a credible argument. Just saying "because I heard someone
say it on ESPN" isn't enough. And there's no need to get personal and
nasty and insulting. It's a discussion about basketball.
You're right about the insult. Sorry.
What I said was that he needed to be moved because of his constant
demands ,and that the analysts ALL said the same thing. That IS the
point. The rest is moot. Unless you are aware that there was a better
deal to be had, you don't have a credible argument.
This is Isiah Thomas thinking. I don't see the urgency of acting
immediately. If that was the best deal out there then wait. Privately
tell Marion you will satisfy his demands in the offseason and wait
until then.
That is an uninformed assumption. This has been going on for two
years. They told him that last season and it didn't happen. That is
a huge part of the problem.



As one year sheds from his contract and teams consider how
Post by Capn'O
they need to retool a whole new slew of trade possibilities are out
there. Good GMs never panic. Look at the Iverson deal. For all his
prior mistakes, Billy King waited until the _right_ deal was on the
table for the franchise... Look at the Kidd deal too. Both of these
guys were making more public disruptions than Marion and both GMs made
out like bandits in those deals. Hell, even look at the Lakers' Shaq
trade. I suppose it's easier to make a deal like that when your team
sucks and the stakes are lower but honestly the Shaq deal just made no
sense from a bball standpoint and could have made more financial sense
too imo.
I understand Kerr's reasoning but the move smacks of desparation to me
and Riley swooped in and capitalized. Just because you have reasons
doesn't mean they are the right ones.
You don't know what was going on behind the scenes. By all accounts,
local and national, it had to be done. Maybe there could have been
more yield, but I have yet to hear of another offer that was presented
to Kerr. Have any of you? It's easy to criticize the one deal, but
Kerr seems to have a pretty good head on his shoulders, and it's
unfair to work on limited information and say he could have done this
or that.

Rizzo
Noah
2008-05-18 14:41:47 UTC
Permalink
You don't know what was going on behind the scenes.  By all accounts,
local and national, it had to be done.  Maybe there could have been
more yield, but I have yet to hear of another offer that was presented
to Kerr.  Have any of you?  It's easy to criticize the one deal, but
Kerr seems to have a pretty good head on his shoulders, and it's
unfair to work on limited information and say he could have done this
or that.
Nobody's necessarily argued that he should have waited and traded
Marion for someone else -- what we're saying here is that sometimes NO
deal is better than any deal, even at the expense of letting Marion go
for nothing, especially if rebuilding is on the horizon. We Knick
fans have learned that lesson the hard way several times over now...it
goes back to Ewing for us.

Furthermore, I don't really think the move was a panic move because
Marion HAD to suddenly be moved...he'd been requesting a trade for
years and still showed up and played hard, and I don't really imagine
he's all that much happier in Miami winning every ninth game. It's
just speculation, but I think Kerr really believed Shaq was the
missing piece to their title aspirations, and that he would be the
Duncan stopper that they just couldn't find. If you think back to all
of the hype surrounding the trade at the time, none of it really was
about Phoenix having its hand forced by Marion. There was a lot of
talk (from coaches and Kerr as well as the analysts whose word you
favor) about how Phoenix was *choosing* to compromise on their run-and-
gun game for a more sturdy half court defense, and how this might
finally get Phoenix past San Antonio. Obviously, that didn't work and
now they're stuck with him for two more years at top dollar as he and
Nash get closer to 40.

The Dallas deal was the same kind of mistake. Kidd's not cheap and at
his age it's hard to see him making a major difference in a title run
by himself, given his compromised defense post-microfracture. While
they're both still good, I think both of those players got acquired by
their respective teams in 2008 on the merits of what they were like in
2001 and 2002 and the "potential" they had to return to their prime
form, not based on what they can actually do now.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-18 16:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
You don't know what was going on behind the scenes. By all accounts,
local and national, it had to be done. Maybe there could have been
more yield, but I have yet to hear of another offer that was presented
to Kerr. Have any of you? It's easy to criticize the one deal, but
Kerr seems to have a pretty good head on his shoulders, and it's
unfair to work on limited information and say he could have done this
or that.
Nobody's necessarily argued that he should have waited and traded
Marion for someone else -- what we're saying here is that sometimes NO
deal is better than any deal, even at the expense of letting Marion go
for nothing, especially if rebuilding is on the horizon. We Knick
fans have learned that lesson the hard way several times over now...it
goes back to Ewing for us.
What I'm saying is that he had to go, even if they were able to get
nothing for him (they couldn't obviously) they wanted him out NOW.
This is what everyone close to the situation said. Why is that so
hard to fathom? It had been dragging on for two seasons...
Post by Noah
Furthermore, I don't really think the move was a panic move because
Marion HAD to suddenly be moved...he'd been requesting a trade for
years and still showed up and played hard, and I don't really imagine
he's all that much happier in Miami winning every ninth game. It's
just speculation, but I think Kerr really believed Shaq was the
missing piece to their title aspirations, and that he would be the
Duncan stopper that they just couldn't find. If you think back to all
of the hype surrounding the trade at the time, none of it really was
about Phoenix having its hand forced by Marion.
I don't agree with that last sentence. I had heard a lot of press
(remember I'm out west) about Marion having to go. If it were JUST
acquiring Shaq, I would agree with you. My premise is that the whole
thing STARTS with them wanting, needing, and having to move Marion...I
think the Shaq stopping Duncan stuff was PR.


There was a lot of
Post by Noah
talk (from coaches and Kerr as well as the analysts whose word you
favor) about how Phoenix was *choosing* to compromise on their run-and-
gun game for a more sturdy half court defense, and how this might
finally get Phoenix past San Antonio. Obviously, that didn't work and
now they're stuck with him for two more years at top dollar as he and
Nash get closer to 40.
The Dallas deal was the same kind of mistake. Kidd's not cheap and at
his age it's hard to see him making a major difference in a title run
by himself, given his compromised defense post-microfracture. While
they're both still good, I think both of those players got acquired by
their respective teams in 2008 on the merits of what they were like in
2001 and 2002 and the "potential" they had to return to their prime
form, not based on what they can actually do now.
I totally agree on Kidd, though that situation was Win now or blow it
up. I think they will blow it up. Starting with AJ...
Noah
2008-05-18 18:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Rizzo
What I'm saying is that he had to go, even if they were able to get
nothing for him (they couldn't obviously) they wanted him out NOW.
This is what everyone close to the situation said.  Why is that so
hard to fathom?   It had been dragging on for two seasons...
It's not hard to fathom them wanting to get rid of him, but it is hard
to fathom paying an extra $20M for another season and tying up the cap
for a extra year to do so. Like I said, there are other ways. They
could get nothing for him -- just sit on the contract and let it
expire. If he's more of a disruption than an asset, send him to the
beach, Smush Parker style. It's hopefully what we're doing with
Marbury this year. But as Cap'n noted, other trade possibilities
might have opened up for them if they waited for the summer, now that
he's going to expire.
Post by Frank Rizzo
I don't agree with that last sentence.  I had heard a lot of press
(remember I'm out west) about Marion having to go.  If it were JUST
acquiring Shaq, I would agree with you.  My premise is that the whole
thing STARTS with them wanting, needing, and having to move Marion...I
think the Shaq stopping Duncan stuff was PR.
If it was PR, a lot of people bought it...to his credit, Shaq did
guard TD pretty well, when he wasn't in foul trouble (which wasn't
often). But nobody was around to stop Parker and Ginobili when he
did.
Post by Frank Rizzo
I totally agree on Kidd, though that situation was Win now or blow it
up.  I think they will blow it up.  Starting with AJ...
Well, my point is that it's much harder to blow it up when you've just
tacked on a max contract extending a couple of seasons.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-19 02:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
What I'm saying is that he had to go, even if they were able to get
nothing for him (they couldn't obviously) they wanted him out NOW.
This is what everyone close to the situation said. Why is that so
hard to fathom? It had been dragging on for two seasons...
It's not hard to fathom them wanting to get rid of him, but it is hard
to fathom paying an extra $20M for another season and tying up the cap
for a extra year to do so. Like I said, there are other ways. They
could get nothing for him -- just sit on the contract and let it
expire. If he's more of a disruption than an asset, send him to the
beach, Smush Parker style. It's hopefully what we're doing with
Marbury this year. But as Cap'n noted, other trade possibilities
might have opened up for them if they waited for the summer, now that
he's going to expire.
Post by Frank Rizzo
I don't agree with that last sentence. I had heard a lot of press
(remember I'm out west) about Marion having to go. If it were JUST
acquiring Shaq, I would agree with you. My premise is that the whole
thing STARTS with them wanting, needing, and having to move Marion...I
think the Shaq stopping Duncan stuff was PR.
If it was PR, a lot of people bought it...to his credit, Shaq did
guard TD pretty well, when he wasn't in foul trouble (which wasn't
often). But nobody was around to stop Parker and Ginobili when he
did.
Post by Frank Rizzo
I totally agree on Kidd, though that situation was Win now or blow it
up. I think they will blow it up. Starting with AJ...
Well, my point is that it's much harder to blow it up when you've just
tacked on a max contract extending a couple of seasons.
Well that's a different situation all together. They have assets
that are coveted unlike Phx (besides Amare). Nash is 8000 years old,
as is Shaq. Barbosa, much like Monta on my team, is a SG that can't
guard other shooting guards. Diaw has been discussed here and though
I don't agree totally with your take, I'm sure you are not alone in
the opinion on him. Dallas on the other hand has younger players that
they can use to "restructure" including Dirk and Howard. More on that
as I just change the topic here...
Noah
2008-05-19 08:59:33 UTC
Permalink
Well that's  a different situation all together.  They have assets
that are coveted unlike Phx (besides Amare).  Nash is 8000 years old,
8000-year old point guards with legendary skill apparently still have
a lot of market value. Rod Thorn called, says hi.
as is Shaq.  Barbosa, much like Monta on my team, is a SG that can't
guard other shooting guards.  Diaw has been discussed here and though
I don't agree totally with your take, I'm sure you are not alone in
the opinion on him.  
Diaw, to my mind, isn't necessarily a terrible player -- he's just a
$3-4M role player unfortunately signed to $9M per year till 2012 based
on Nash feeding him, mostly based on the 2006 playoffs when all of
Phoenix was injured and Nash was working with what he had. My
suspicion is that if you take him away from title contention and he's
going to founder. One playoff series isn't enough (unless you're
Jerome James, I guess).
Dallas on the other hand has younger players that
they can use to "restructure" including Dirk and Howard.  More on that
as I just change the topic here...
Dirk's not really a spring chicken anymore either, is he? I mean,
he's not 8000 years old, but he's gotta be pushing 30 by now.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-19 16:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
Well that's a different situation all together. They have assets
that are coveted unlike Phx (besides Amare). Nash is 8000 years old,
8000-year old point guards with legendary skill apparently still have
a lot of market value. Rod Thorn called, says hi.
Post by Frank Rizzo
as is Shaq. Barbosa, much like Monta on my team, is a SG that can't
guard other shooting guards. Diaw has been discussed here and though
I don't agree totally with your take, I'm sure you are not alone in
the opinion on him.
Diaw, to my mind, isn't necessarily a terrible player -- he's just a
$3-4M role player unfortunately signed to $9M per year till 2012 based
on Nash feeding him, mostly based on the 2006 playoffs when all of
Phoenix was injured and Nash was working with what he had. My
suspicion is that if you take him away from title contention and he's
going to founder. One playoff series isn't enough (unless you're
Jerome James, I guess).
Post by Frank Rizzo
Dallas on the other hand has younger players that
they can use to "restructure" including Dirk and Howard. More on that
as I just change the topic here...
Dirk's not really a spring chicken anymore either, is he? I mean,
he's not 8000 years old, but he's gotta be pushing 30 by now.
I think Dirk is pushing 30 yes.....He started when he was 19....But I
still think a 7 footer that can shoot and rebound like that has value
around the league unlike a PG that while a great shooter and passer,
can't guard anyone and has back problems....
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-19 03:01:02 UTC
Permalink
On May 18, 11:53 am, Noah <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player? Yeah he's a good
player. But can he defend in the post and can he play down low
offensively. I think he's a #2 player not a #1. What say you? Kind
of leaning that way on a few other players.

Definite Franchise players:

1) Kobe
2) Lebron
3) Duncan (Still)
4) Paul
5) KG
6) D Howard
7) D Williams
8) Roy
9) Yao
10) Wade (a healthy Wade)
11) Brand (when healthy)
12) Stoudamire

Players that are ALMOST franchise players but think they are or are
marketed as such

1) Dirk
2) Baron (I love my former Bruin alumnus, but 1% missing)
3) Joe Johnson (need to see it on the road pal)
4) Iguodala
5) Melo (most overrated no D ball hog in the league)
6) Iverson (Same as Baron, but mostly due to age/mileage)
7) Durant (not yet)
8) Nash (not any more - no defense)
9) T-Mac (see #8 above)
10) Deng (again, not yet)
11) Boozer (see the Lakers series this year or SA last year?)
12) Gasol
13) Vince (used to be)
14) Pierce
15) Allen (same as AI)

Players that could get there, we'll see, they need work but have
potential:

1) Rudy Gay
2) Bynum
3) Oden
4) Horford
5) Julian Wright
6) LMA
7) Randy Foye
8) Ronnie Brewer
9) Danny Granger
10) David Lee
11) Monta Ellis


Who else do you think should be on there (especially the last part)???
Syfo-Dyas
2008-05-19 03:57:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:01:02 -0700 (PDT), Frank Rizzo
Post by Frank Rizzo
Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player? Yeah he's a good
player. But can he defend in the post and can he play down low
offensively. I think he's a #2 player not a #1. What say you? Kind
of leaning that way on a few other players.
By the way... good list and good topic... Also painfully evident for
Knick fans... There are no definite franchis players on our poor team.
Dont know if you agree but, my definition at least the simple one for
Franchise Player is..."A player that if even on a poor team would make
the team good or very good WITHOUT a secondary player to help him. A
good example that is current would probably be Lebron James and that
cleveland team. I mean he really doesn't have a secondary good player
and IMHO is doing the almost impossible with that team. No way that
team should have given Boston that much trouble. Now pair Lebron with
one of the guys on your ALMOST franchise player list like Dirk and I
think that team with those two would be hard to beat.
Post by Frank Rizzo
1) Kobe
2) Lebron
3) Duncan (Still)
4) Paul
5) KG
6) D Howard
7) D Williams
8) Roy
9) Yao
10) Wade (a healthy Wade)
11) Brand (when healthy)
12) Stoudamire
Players that are ALMOST franchise players but think they are or are
marketed as such
1) Dirk
2) Baron (I love my former Bruin alumnus, but 1% missing)
3) Joe Johnson (need to see it on the road pal)
4) Iguodala
5) Melo (most overrated no D ball hog in the league)
6) Iverson (Same as Baron, but mostly due to age/mileage)
7) Durant (not yet)
8) Nash (not any more - no defense)
9) T-Mac (see #8 above)
10) Deng (again, not yet)
11) Boozer (see the Lakers series this year or SA last year?)
12) Gasol
13) Vince (used to be)
14) Pierce
15) Allen (same as AI)
Again how sad for Knick fans. We dont even have a ALMOST franchise
player on our poor team.
Post by Frank Rizzo
Players that could get there, we'll see, they need work but have
1) Rudy Gay
2) Bynum
3) Oden
4) Horford
5) Julian Wright
6) LMA
7) Randy Foye
8) Ronnie Brewer
9) Danny Granger
10) David Lee
11) Monta Ellis
Thanks for adding a Knick player to your list. What do you think about
Jamal Crawford??? Could he possibly be added to a Franchise player's
team and make them marginally better??? Could Crawford have helped
Lebron with the Celts today????
Dan Gaters
2008-05-19 04:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Could Crawford have helped Lebron with the Celts today????
In 2010 he will, according to StraightTalk Walshy.

DG
Noah
2008-05-19 09:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Syfo-Dyas
I mean he really doesn't have a secondary good player
Ben Wallace? Ilgauskas? Pavlovic? Varejao? Gibson? West?

I'd take their team WITHOUT LeBron over ours...
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-19 16:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Syfo-Dyas
I mean he really doesn't have a secondary good player
Ben Wallace? Ilgauskas? Pavlovic? Varejao? Gibson? West?
I'd take their team WITHOUT LeBron over ours...
I wouldn't. Wallace is worthless. Ask any Bulls fan. He was getting
used in the post. The only one of those guys I like is Z, but he's
getting old. I think if you plug LBJ on the Knicks they get to the
second round. THat's how bad Cleveland is.

Rizzo
Noah
2008-05-20 08:02:35 UTC
Permalink
I wouldn't.  Wallace is worthless.  Ask any Bulls fan.  He was getting
used in the post.  The only one of those guys I like is Z, but he's
getting old.  I think if you plug LBJ on the Knicks they get to the
second round.  THat's how bad Cleveland is.
Rizzo
Comparing the two rosters, I'd take Cleveland's in a heartbeat. It's
a waste of time to argue about it, though. We'll have to agree to
disagree on this one.
Noah
2008-05-19 09:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Syfo-Dyas
Could Crawford have helped
Lebron with the Celts today????
The Cavs were jacking up enough ill-advised jumpers all by themselves.
Dan Gaters
2008-05-19 03:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Rizzo
Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player?
Other than Kobe, LeBron and Duncan, there are no franchise players. Maybe
franchise duos. As a franchise duo, which would you take?

C Paul + T Chandler
J Kidd + D Nowitzki
S Nash + A Stoudamire
D Williams + C Boozer

DG
Noah
2008-05-19 09:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Gaters
Post by Frank Rizzo
Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player?
Other than Kobe, LeBron and Duncan, there are no franchise players. Maybe
franchise duos. As a franchise duo, which would you take?
C Paul + T Chandler
J Kidd + D Nowitzki
S Nash + A Stoudamire
D Williams + C Boozer
DG
Paul doesn't need Chandler to do his thing. Nash and Kidd have done
it with guys like Kenyon Martin and Eddie House. You've got a point
with Deron and Boozer.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-19 16:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Dan Gaters
Post by Frank Rizzo
Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player?
Other than Kobe, LeBron and Duncan, there are no franchise players. Maybe
franchise duos. As a franchise duo, which would you take?
C Paul + T Chandler
J Kidd + D Nowitzki
S Nash + A Stoudamire
D Williams + C Boozer
DG
Paul doesn't need Chandler to do his thing. Nash and Kidd have done
it with guys like Kenyon Martin and Eddie House. You've got a point
with Deron and Boozer.
I agree with Noah about Paul, but disagree about Williams. Williams
can do it without Boozer, and did against the Lakers. Boozer was non-
existent against another taller player.
Glenn Greenstein
2008-05-19 13:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Gaters
Post by Frank Rizzo
Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player?
Other than Kobe, LeBron and Duncan, there are no franchise players. Maybe
franchise duos. As a franchise duo, which would you take?
C Paul + T Chandler
J Kidd + D Nowitzki
S Nash + A Stoudamire
D Williams + C Boozer
DG
I think in a respect, every team has a franchise player, or a player they
have built around. In our case sadly, it was Curry. He is a franchise player
at the moment, but a really, really bad one. I think a better choice would
have been Crawford, but not to the point it would make the Knicks any better
than they are.
Also Frank, I don't agree with your take on Mello. He has taken steps in D
and rebounding this season. I think next season, he could be a 20-10 guy and
he has had some good games in blocks and steals. He needs mostly to work on
his shot selection and T/O's. The rest of his game is coming along.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-19 16:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Greenstein
Post by Dan Gaters
Post by Frank Rizzo
Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player?
Other than Kobe, LeBron and Duncan, there are no franchise players. Maybe
franchise duos. As a franchise duo, which would you take?
C Paul + T Chandler
J Kidd + D Nowitzki
S Nash + A Stoudamire
D Williams + C Boozer
DG
I think in a respect, every team has a franchise player, or a player they
have built around. In our case sadly, it was Curry. He is a franchise player
at the moment, but a really, really bad one. I think a better choice would
have been Crawford, but not to the point it would make the Knicks any better
than they are.
Also Frank, I don't agree with your take on Mello. He has taken steps in D
and rebounding this season. I think next season, he could be a 20-10 guy and
he has had some good games in blocks and steals. He needs mostly to work on
his shot selection and T/O's. The rest of his game is coming along.
Well around the league, more people agree with you than with me.
However I've never seen Melo play good D for 4 qtrs, ever. And he's
a black hole. Iverson, for all his issues, gets 9 assists a game, so
he creates for others. Melo, creates for Melo. And if he doens't get
his shots, he disappears on both ends. I just don't see it. I'm not
saying he's not a good player, just overrated. When he came in they
were comparing him to Lebron. That didn't last, did it. Then he was
being marketed as a model citizen til he punched Mardy and backpedaled
like a chicken-shit. Now he's all-world. Someone in the NBA PR
department is fucking him or wants to. I still don't see the
greatness there.

Rizzo
Noah
2008-05-20 08:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Rizzo
Post by Glenn Greenstein
Post by Dan Gaters
Post by Frank Rizzo
Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player?
Other than Kobe, LeBron and Duncan, there are no franchise players. Maybe
franchise duos. As a franchise duo, which would you take?
C Paul + T Chandler
J Kidd + D Nowitzki
S Nash + A Stoudamire
D Williams + C Boozer
DG
I think in a respect, every team has a franchise player, or a player they
have built around. In our case sadly, it was Curry. He is a franchise player
at the moment, but a really, really bad one. I think a better choice would
have been Crawford, but not to the point it would make the Knicks any better
than they are.
Also Frank, I don't agree with your take on Mello. He has taken steps in D
and rebounding this season. I think next season, he could be a 20-10 guy and
he has had some good games in blocks and steals. He needs mostly to work on
his shot selection and T/O's. The rest of his game is coming along.
Well around the league, more people agree with you than with me.
However I've never seen Melo play good D for 4 qtrs, ever.   And he's
a black hole.  Iverson, for all his issues, gets 9 assists a game, so
he creates for others.  Melo, creates for Melo.  And if he doens't get
his shots, he disappears on both ends.  I just don't see it.  I'm not
saying he's not a good player, just overrated.  When he came in they
were comparing him to Lebron.  That didn't last, did it.  Then he was
being marketed as a model citizen til he punched Mardy and backpedaled
like a chicken-shit.  Now he's all-world.  Someone in the NBA PR
department is fucking him or wants to.  I still don't see the
greatness there.
Rizzo
I totally agree with you here. Carmelo's a waste of time. He's
Marbury in a PF's body, although maybe not as surly.
Noah
2008-05-20 08:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Greenstein
I think a better choice would
have been Crawford, but not to the point it would make the Knicks any better
than they are.
I love this.
Noah
2008-05-20 08:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Greenstein
I think a better choice would
have been Crawford, but not to the point it would make the Knicks any better
than they are.
I love this. Ladies and gentlemen, Glenn Greenstein.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-19 16:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Gaters
Post by Frank Rizzo
Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player?
Other than Kobe, LeBron and Duncan, there are no franchise players. Maybe
franchise duos. As a franchise duo, which would you take?
C Paul + T Chandler
J Kidd + D Nowitzki
S Nash + A Stoudamire
D Williams + C Boozer
DG
Well, your definition above is a finer category. Not saying it's
wrong, just a different definition. I would have to include KG in the
group you have.
Capn'O
2008-05-19 21:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Gaters
Post by Frank Rizzo
Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player?
Other than Kobe, LeBron and Duncan,
I may be jumping the gun by a few hours but I'm putting Paul on that
list too.

there are no franchise players. Maybe
Post by Dan Gaters
franchise duos. As a franchise duo, which would you take?
Pierce and Garnett fit that bill perfectly, imo. Garnett anchors the D
and Pierce can take over a game.
Dan Gaters
2008-05-20 02:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capn'O
I may be jumping the gun by a few hours
Yes, you are.
Post by Capn'O
but I'm putting Paul on that list too.
He's gifted alright but he sure doesn't yet have the competitive instinct a
la Ginobili or Kobe.

This game 7 is still in 3rd quarter, but I'm already disappointed by Paul
and the rest of the somnambulists.

DG
Capn'O
2008-05-20 02:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Gaters
Post by Capn'O
I may be jumping the gun by a few hours
Yes, you are.
Well, he wouldn't be the first superstar to lose to Timmy and the
Spurs.

Will he be the last though?
Noah
2008-05-19 09:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player?  Yeah he's a good
player.  But can he defend in the post and can he play down low
offensively.  I think he's a #2 player not a #1.  What say you?  Kind
of leaning that way on a few other players.
1) Kobe
yep
2) Lebron
No question.
3) Duncan (Still)
absolutely.
4) Paul
yep
5) KG
perhaps entering the Ewing zone, but yep
6) D Howard
I'd put him in your "almost but not quite" list. He's still pretty
young, but he doesn't yet belong in this company.
7) D Williams
yes.
8) Roy
TBD
9) Yao
Nah. If he was shorter he'd be positively ordinary. As is he's TBD.
10) Wade (a healthy Wade)
He was pretty epic in that title run, but since then?
11) Brand (when healthy)
No.
12) Stoudamire
No. Only plays on one half of the floor.
Players that are ALMOST franchise players but think they are or are
marketed as such
1) Dirk
I'd put him over Brand, and he's great, but his game face is still
MIA.
2) Baron (I love my former Bruin alumnus, but 1% missing)
Among the most talented shooting guards ever, but too selfish. It
still hurts that they chose to celebrate their remarkable first round
win last year early and showed up for that series in Utah with a
hangover.
3) Joe Johnson (need to see it on the road pal)
Nah.
4) Iguodala
Absolutely not.
5) Melo (most overrated no D ball hog in the league)
No, for the reason you state.
6) Iverson (Same as Baron, but mostly due to age/mileage)
Iverson's a weird quandary...he's a legend, but also same as Baron,
suffers from the selfish disease. Not being a team guy killed what
would have been an otherwise obvious ring or two.
7) Durant (not yet)
WAY too early.
8) Nash (not any more - no defense)
I normally agree that a defensive-absent player isn't worth it, but
I'd say if there was ever an argument for making up no defense with
completely brilliant offense, it's Nash. He's also got a fighter's
mentality most don't.
9) T-Mac (see #8 above)
No. All style, no substance. He's talented as hell but has no idea
how to import that talent into the framework of a team. I'm amazed
he's not a Knick. Maybe after a few more injuries.
10) Deng (again, not yet)
No.
11) Boozer (see the Lakers series this year or SA last year?)
Kind of, but not really. Could he do it by himself?
12) Gasol
Good #2 guy.
13) Vince (used to be)
Almost before. Nothing now.
14) Pierce
Yes. He's always been good.
15) Allen (same as AI)
Perennial also-ran.
Players that could get there, we'll see, they need work but have
1) Rudy Gay
2) Bynum
We'll see.
3) Oden
He hasn't played his first game yet.
4) Horford
It's possible.
5) Julian Wright
6) LMA
7) Randy Foye
8) Ronnie Brewer
We'll see.
9) Danny Granger
No.
10) David Lee
No. He can be a very good role player. He's never going to be the
face of a franchise.
11) Monta Ellis
Yeah. He's pretty spectacular, but he's not going to learn any
defense from Don Nelson.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-19 16:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player? Yeah he's a good
player. But can he defend in the post and can he play down low
offensively. I think he's a #2 player not a #1. What say you? Kind
of leaning that way on a few other players.
1) Kobe
yep
Post by Frank Rizzo
2) Lebron
No question.
Post by Frank Rizzo
3) Duncan (Still)
absolutely.
Post by Frank Rizzo
4) Paul
yep
Post by Frank Rizzo
5) KG
perhaps entering the Ewing zone, but yep
Post by Frank Rizzo
6) D Howard
I'd put him in your "almost but not quite" list. He's still pretty
young, but he doesn't yet belong in this company.
Post by Frank Rizzo
7) D Williams
yes.
Post by Frank Rizzo
8) Roy
TBD
Post by Frank Rizzo
9) Yao
Nah. If he was shorter he'd be positively ordinary. As is he's TBD.
Post by Frank Rizzo
10) Wade (a healthy Wade)
He was pretty epic in that title run, but since then?
Post by Frank Rizzo
11) Brand (when healthy)
No.
Post by Frank Rizzo
12) Stoudamire
No. Only plays on one half of the floor.
Post by Frank Rizzo
Players that are ALMOST franchise players but think they are or are
marketed as such
1) Dirk
I'd put him over Brand, and he's great, but his game face is still
MIA.
Post by Frank Rizzo
2) Baron (I love my former Bruin alumnus, but 1% missing)
Among the most talented shooting guards ever, but too selfish. It
still hurts that they chose to celebrate their remarkable first round
win last year early and showed up for that series in Utah with a
hangover.
Post by Frank Rizzo
3) Joe Johnson (need to see it on the road pal)
Nah.
Post by Frank Rizzo
4) Iguodala
Absolutely not.
Post by Frank Rizzo
5) Melo (most overrated no D ball hog in the league)
No, for the reason you state.
Post by Frank Rizzo
6) Iverson (Same as Baron, but mostly due to age/mileage)
Iverson's a weird quandary...he's a legend, but also same as Baron,
suffers from the selfish disease. Not being a team guy killed what
would have been an otherwise obvious ring or two.
Post by Frank Rizzo
7) Durant (not yet)
WAY too early.
Post by Frank Rizzo
8) Nash (not any more - no defense)
I normally agree that a defensive-absent player isn't worth it, but
I'd say if there was ever an argument for making up no defense with
completely brilliant offense, it's Nash. He's also got a fighter's
mentality most don't.
Post by Frank Rizzo
9) T-Mac (see #8 above)
No. All style, no substance. He's talented as hell but has no idea
how to import that talent into the framework of a team. I'm amazed
he's not a Knick. Maybe after a few more injuries.
Post by Frank Rizzo
10) Deng (again, not yet)
No.
Post by Frank Rizzo
11) Boozer (see the Lakers series this year or SA last year?)
Kind of, but not really. Could he do it by himself?
Post by Frank Rizzo
12) Gasol
Good #2 guy.
Post by Frank Rizzo
13) Vince (used to be)
Almost before. Nothing now.
Post by Frank Rizzo
14) Pierce
Yes. He's always been good.
Post by Frank Rizzo
15) Allen (same as AI)
Perennial also-ran.
Post by Frank Rizzo
Players that could get there, we'll see, they need work but have
1) Rudy Gay
2) Bynum
We'll see.
Post by Frank Rizzo
3) Oden
He hasn't played his first game yet.
Post by Frank Rizzo
4) Horford
It's possible.
Post by Frank Rizzo
5) Julian Wright
6) LMA
7) Randy Foye
8) Ronnie Brewer
We'll see.
Post by Frank Rizzo
9) Danny Granger
No.
Post by Frank Rizzo
10) David Lee
No. He can be a very good role player. He's never going to be the
face of a franchise.
Post by Frank Rizzo
11) Monta Ellis
Yeah. He's pretty spectacular, but he's not going to learn any
defense from Don Nelson.
SOme notes. Baron is not a shooting guard, he's a PG. I understand
your point on Howard, wait til he gets some post moves. Scary. You
can't downgrade Yao because he's 7'6. That's like saying if Paul
weren't quick and elusive, he'd be average. On Ellis, agreed. But
Nellie will be gone after one year and Monta will be only 23. Bynum
is already a stud defensively and on the glass and is working with
Kareem on offensive. Good points on T-Mac and Nash. Wade was pretty
awesome until injury, I think at his age it's unfair to downgrade him
after one season of injury. Let's keep him in that group until this
year. Other than NO, what is your thought on Granger? Stoudamire is
pretty awesome on the offensive end, almost unstoppable. I think
we're in agreement on almost all of these..

What do you guys think of Lee if he develops a mid range game.
Glenn Greenstein
2008-05-19 20:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Rizzo
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
Do you really think Dirk is a franchise player? Yeah he's a good
player. But can he defend in the post and can he play down low
offensively. I think he's a #2 player not a #1. What say you? Kind
of leaning that way on a few other players.
1) Kobe
yep
Post by Frank Rizzo
2) Lebron
No question.
Post by Frank Rizzo
3) Duncan (Still)
absolutely.
Post by Frank Rizzo
4) Paul
yep
Post by Frank Rizzo
5) KG
perhaps entering the Ewing zone, but yep
Post by Frank Rizzo
6) D Howard
I'd put him in your "almost but not quite" list. He's still pretty
young, but he doesn't yet belong in this company.
Post by Frank Rizzo
7) D Williams
yes.
Post by Frank Rizzo
8) Roy
TBD
Post by Frank Rizzo
9) Yao
Nah. If he was shorter he'd be positively ordinary. As is he's TBD.
Post by Frank Rizzo
10) Wade (a healthy Wade)
He was pretty epic in that title run, but since then?
Post by Frank Rizzo
11) Brand (when healthy)
No.
Post by Frank Rizzo
12) Stoudamire
No. Only plays on one half of the floor.
Post by Frank Rizzo
Players that are ALMOST franchise players but think they are or are
marketed as such
1) Dirk
I'd put him over Brand, and he's great, but his game face is still
MIA.
Post by Frank Rizzo
2) Baron (I love my former Bruin alumnus, but 1% missing)
Among the most talented shooting guards ever, but too selfish. It
still hurts that they chose to celebrate their remarkable first round
win last year early and showed up for that series in Utah with a
hangover.
Post by Frank Rizzo
3) Joe Johnson (need to see it on the road pal)
Nah.
Post by Frank Rizzo
4) Iguodala
Absolutely not.
Post by Frank Rizzo
5) Melo (most overrated no D ball hog in the league)
No, for the reason you state.
Post by Frank Rizzo
6) Iverson (Same as Baron, but mostly due to age/mileage)
Iverson's a weird quandary...he's a legend, but also same as Baron,
suffers from the selfish disease. Not being a team guy killed what
would have been an otherwise obvious ring or two.
Post by Frank Rizzo
7) Durant (not yet)
WAY too early.
Post by Frank Rizzo
8) Nash (not any more - no defense)
I normally agree that a defensive-absent player isn't worth it, but
I'd say if there was ever an argument for making up no defense with
completely brilliant offense, it's Nash. He's also got a fighter's
mentality most don't.
Post by Frank Rizzo
9) T-Mac (see #8 above)
No. All style, no substance. He's talented as hell but has no idea
how to import that talent into the framework of a team. I'm amazed
he's not a Knick. Maybe after a few more injuries.
Post by Frank Rizzo
10) Deng (again, not yet)
No.
Post by Frank Rizzo
11) Boozer (see the Lakers series this year or SA last year?)
Kind of, but not really. Could he do it by himself?
Post by Frank Rizzo
12) Gasol
Good #2 guy.
Post by Frank Rizzo
13) Vince (used to be)
Almost before. Nothing now.
Post by Frank Rizzo
14) Pierce
Yes. He's always been good.
Post by Frank Rizzo
15) Allen (same as AI)
Perennial also-ran.
Post by Frank Rizzo
Players that could get there, we'll see, they need work but have
1) Rudy Gay
2) Bynum
We'll see.
Post by Frank Rizzo
3) Oden
He hasn't played his first game yet.
Post by Frank Rizzo
4) Horford
It's possible.
Post by Frank Rizzo
5) Julian Wright
6) LMA
7) Randy Foye
8) Ronnie Brewer
We'll see.
Post by Frank Rizzo
9) Danny Granger
No.
Post by Frank Rizzo
10) David Lee
No. He can be a very good role player. He's never going to be the
face of a franchise.
Post by Frank Rizzo
11) Monta Ellis
Yeah. He's pretty spectacular, but he's not going to learn any
defense from Don Nelson.
SOme notes. Baron is not a shooting guard, he's a PG. I understand
your point on Howard, wait til he gets some post moves. Scary. You
can't downgrade Yao because he's 7'6. That's like saying if Paul
weren't quick and elusive, he'd be average. On Ellis, agreed. But
Nellie will be gone after one year and Monta will be only 23. Bynum
is already a stud defensively and on the glass and is working with
Kareem on offensive. Good points on T-Mac and Nash. Wade was pretty
awesome until injury, I think at his age it's unfair to downgrade him
after one season of injury. Let's keep him in that group until this
year. Other than NO, what is your thought on Granger? Stoudamire is
pretty awesome on the offensive end, almost unstoppable. I think
we're in agreement on almost all of these..
What do you guys think of Lee if he develops a mid range game.
Still wouldn't be a franchise player, but he would be a complete forward.
Dan Gaters
2008-05-20 01:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Rizzo
What do you guys think of Lee if he develops a mid range game.
Negative. He gets blocks too many times.

DG
Noah
2008-05-20 08:21:58 UTC
Permalink
SOme notes. Baron is not a shooting guard, he's a PG.  
Well, he plays the PG, but I think he's really an SG at heart. He
doesn't really set the table and run plays and focus on ball movement
and defense. His strength is that he scores really dominantly. He's
sort of the Good Witch to Marbury's Bad Witch...otherwise they're sort
of the same player (obviously Baron is more talented and smarter).
I understand
your point on Howard, wait til he gets some post moves.  Scary.
Well, let's talk about it then.
 You
can't downgrade Yao because he's 7'6.  That's like saying if Paul
weren't quick and elusive, he'd be average.
Two words: Sean Bradley. (It actually kinda favors your argument more
than mine). When Yao makes it out of the first round in a dominant
performance -- with McGrady at his side and one of now two great
coaches on his bench -- I'll be rapt with attention. Till then, I'm
kinda yawning.
On Ellis, agreed.  But
Nellie will be gone after one year and Monta will be only 23.
Well, look at Dallas. Some guys are defenders and some guys just
ain't. Don't get me wrong -- Monta is my boy and he's about my
favorite guy to watch on a fast break. Is he ever going to be able to
cover anyone, though?
Wade was pretty
awesome until injury, I think at his age it's unfair to downgrade him
after one season of injury.  Let's keep  him in that group until this
year.
As you like.
 Other than NO, what is your thought on Granger?
He's fine, but franchise player? He's kinda that traditional good
player on a bad team. Use my yardstick -- put him on the Spurs and
how much time would he see?
Stoudamire is
pretty awesome on the offensive end, almost unstoppable.  
Yeah, but if you give up as many as you get you end up at zero. He
was positively schooled this year at the 4...granted, by probably the
best 4 ever, but SCHOOLED. Embarrassingly so. He had way more to do
with the Suns setting than O'Neal, in my opinion.
What do you guys think of Lee if he develops a mid range game.
Lee himself has admitted his whole game is being faster than other
4s. He's a big deal solely because he's the one player in NY that
doesn't completely suck (or suck based on what he's getting paid).
Again, the yardstick -- if they traded him to the Spurs, he wouldn't
exactly be challenging Duncan for a starting role. Probably if they
traded him to the Spurs in seven years, it'd be the same story. He's
a fine backup on a great team or a starter on a mediocre team. Right
now he's the only good player on a terrible team, and it's driven his
stock up.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-20 17:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
SOme notes. Baron is not a shooting guard, he's a PG.
Well, he plays the PG, but I think he's really an SG at heart. He
doesn't really set the table and run plays and focus on ball movement
and defense. His strength is that he scores really dominantly. He's
sort of the Good Witch to Marbury's Bad Witch...otherwise they're sort
of the same player (obviously Baron is more talented and smarter).
Post by Frank Rizzo
I understand
your point on Howard, wait til he gets some post moves. Scary.
Well, let's talk about it then.
Post by Frank Rizzo
You
can't downgrade Yao because he's 7'6. That's like saying if Paul
weren't quick and elusive, he'd be average.
Two words: Sean Bradley. (It actually kinda favors your argument more
than mine). When Yao makes it out of the first round in a dominant
performance -- with McGrady at his side and one of now two great
coaches on his bench -- I'll be rapt with attention. Till then, I'm
kinda yawning.
Post by Frank Rizzo
On Ellis, agreed. But
Nellie will be gone after one year and Monta will be only 23.
Well, look at Dallas. Some guys are defenders and some guys just
ain't. Don't get me wrong -- Monta is my boy and he's about my
favorite guy to watch on a fast break. Is he ever going to be able to
cover anyone, though?
Post by Frank Rizzo
Wade was pretty
awesome until injury, I think at his age it's unfair to downgrade him
after one season of injury. Let's keep him in that group until this
year.
As you like.
Post by Frank Rizzo
Other than NO, what is your thought on Granger?
He's fine, but franchise player? He's kinda that traditional good
player on a bad team. Use my yardstick -- put him on the Spurs and
how much time would he see?
Post by Frank Rizzo
Stoudamire is
pretty awesome on the offensive end, almost unstoppable.
Yeah, but if you give up as many as you get you end up at zero. He
was positively schooled this year at the 4...granted, by probably the
best 4 ever, but SCHOOLED. Embarrassingly so. He had way more to do
with the Suns setting than O'Neal, in my opinion.
Post by Frank Rizzo
What do you guys think of Lee if he develops a mid range game.
Lee himself has admitted his whole game is being faster than other
4s. He's a big deal solely because he's the one player in NY that
doesn't completely suck (or suck based on what he's getting paid).
Again, the yardstick -- if they traded him to the Spurs, he wouldn't
exactly be challenging Duncan for a starting role. Probably if they
traded him to the Spurs in seven years, it'd be the same story. He's
a fine backup on a great team or a starter on a mediocre team. Right
now he's the only good player on a terrible team, and it's driven his
stock up.
On Baron, he is far more suited to PG. You don't get to see a lot of
him because he's in the West, but he actually does set people up.
He's asked to score a lot more under Nellie. He shoots a lot, but he
also makes the team go. When he comes out the offense doesn't work as
good.

I'm not a big fan of Amare's attitude. Like some other players, it
would be to his own benefit if he committed to defense . He is
certainly athletic enough.
Noah
2008-05-20 21:54:44 UTC
Permalink
On Baron, he is far more suited to PG.  You don't get to see a lot of
him because he's in the West, but he actually does set people up.
He's asked to score a lot more under Nellie.  He shoots a lot, but he
also makes the team go.  When he comes out the offense doesn't work as
good.
Well, I've got Bay Area roots as well as New York ones, so I see more
Warriors and Kings games than the average East Coaster. I also
watched him for years when he played in Charlotte and then New
Orleans. It's true that he CAN set people up well, but he does (or at
least used to) get into a lot of one on one scenarios and try to take
over a game singlehandedly. That's not necessarily a traditional PG's
role. At least offensively, I kinda think Nash is the example of what
a PG should do on offense -- he seems to always intrisnically know
when to set people up and when to take over himself, and keeps it
pretty balanced.
I'm not a big fan of Amare's attitude.  Like some other players, it
would be to his own benefit if he committed to defense .  He is
certainly athletic enough.
I think it's just a different skill set. So much of good defense is
footwork. It's hard to see, but some people just seem to have it and
others just don't. You're probably right that trying hard to improve
at it may not be on his priority list, though.
Capn'O
2008-05-19 22:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Fun topic, Rizzo. Like old school usenet. Are we getting "franchise
players" confused with "superstars" or are they the same thing?

My superstars are:

Duncan
Kobe
LeBron
Paul - like I said, I may be jumping the gun but I really think he's
the real thing. He's one of those rare players that improved his team
by leaps and bounds the moment he entered the league.

Other franchise players (not superstars) include:

KG - Simply can't take over a game by himself the way the guys above
him can. he comes close on D but just comes up short on offense.

Wade - I think this year was an aberration. he was injured, the Shaq
situation distracted everybody, and the team outside of him sucked
sucked sucked. with a high pick and Marion as a #2 I think the Heat
will be strong next year

Nash - Hard to deny him the Franchise label. He absolutely controls
games from the offensive end. But. there is that big hole in his
game...

Dirk - I'm hesitant to even keep him off this list. He can take over
a game moreso than Garnett but is a damn liability in the clutch
because he doesn't go inside. Doesn't have the defense of Garnett.
Sometimes I love his game but others I really wonder if he is any
better than a guy like Sheed.

Yao - Dude just keeps breaking his legs but with Adelman i think the
Rockets would have made it much farther this year... oh well

Deron - No knock on Deron but he's not quite at Paul's level

DHoward - I think his presence alone is a second round ticket and that
is a franchise player in my book

Then there are guys like Pierce, Billups, Amare, Parker, Baron, Gasol,
Sheed, Tmac and Melo and I'm sure I've forgotten somebody in there.
These are guys that with the right cast can dominate but could also be
the best player on a bad team.
Noah
2008-05-20 08:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capn'O
Wade - I think this year was an aberration. he was injured, the Shaq
situation distracted everybody, and the team outside of him sucked
sucked sucked. with a high pick and Marion as a #2 I think the Heat
will be strong next year
When almost everybody else on the Lakers sucked sucked sucked in
recent years, Kobe took them to the first round and 40-odd wins by
himself. When almost everybody on the Heat sucked sucked sucked, Wade
took them to 14 wins or so.
Post by Capn'O
Dirk -  I'm hesitant to even keep him off this list. He can take over
a game moreso than Garnett but is a damn liability in the clutch
because he doesn't go inside. Doesn't have the defense of Garnett.
Sometimes I love his game but others I really wonder if he is any
better than a guy like Sheed.
I think Sheed's better. Hence the ring. I'm still not sure 2000
wasn't a Stern fix or he might have had two on two teams.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-20 17:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Capn'O
Wade - I think this year was an aberration. he was injured, the Shaq
situation distracted everybody, and the team outside of him sucked
sucked sucked. with a high pick and Marion as a #2 I think the Heat
will be strong next year
When almost everybody else on the Lakers sucked sucked sucked in
recent years, Kobe took them to the first round and 40-odd wins by
himself. When almost everybody on the Heat sucked sucked sucked, Wade
took them to 14 wins or so.
DUDE. Wade had TWO injuries that both required surgery. UNFAIR
comparison.
Noah
2008-05-20 22:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Capn'O
Wade - I think this year was an aberration. he was injured, the Shaq
situation distracted everybody, and the team outside of him sucked
sucked sucked. with a high pick and Marion as a #2 I think the Heat
will be strong next year
When almost everybody else on the Lakers sucked sucked sucked in
recent years, Kobe took them to the first round and 40-odd wins by
himself.  When almost everybody on the Heat sucked sucked sucked, Wade
took them to 14 wins or so.
DUDE.  Wade had TWO injuries that both required surgery.  UNFAIR
comparison.
Not an even comparison, no, but still, the worst team in the league?
Capn'O
2008-05-20 23:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Capn'O
Wade - I think this year was an aberration. he was injured, the Shaq
situation distracted everybody, and the team outside of him sucked
sucked sucked. with a high pick and Marion as a #2 I think the Heat
will be strong next year
When almost everybody else on the Lakers sucked sucked sucked in
recent years, Kobe took them to the first round and 40-odd wins by
himself. When almost everybody on the Heat sucked sucked sucked, Wade
took them to 14 wins or so.
Well, that's why I put him below Kobe. More to the point I think Wade
needed a lot more time on the shelf at the _beginning_ of the year. He
simply wasn't as effective as he was in previous years (see last).
Last years mediocre Heat team was more of an indicator of his prowess.
Lee Watkins
2008-05-20 19:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capn'O
Fun topic, Rizzo. Like old school usenet. Are we getting "franchise
players" confused with "superstars" or are they the same thing?
Duncan
Kobe
LeBron
Paul - like I said, I may be jumping the gun but I really think he's
the real thing. He's one of those rare players that improved his team
by leaps and bounds the moment he entered the league.
KG - Simply can't take over a game by himself the way the guys above
him can. he comes close on D but just comes up short on offense.
outside of the cassell/spreewell years, hes had some pretty horrid
teams. its hard to say that ANY of the players above him could have
done much with those squads.
ugh, i hate the fact that im defending garnett :)
Post by Capn'O
Wade - I think this year was an aberration. he was injured, the Shaq
situation distracted everybody, and the team outside of him sucked
sucked sucked. with a high pick and Marion as a #2 I think the Heat
will be strong next year
i too think wade will bounce back.
Post by Capn'O
Nash - Hard to deny him the Franchise label. He absolutely controls
games from the offensive end. But. there is that big hole in his
game...
im undecided on where to rank nash. yeah, his defense is horrid...but
some of the stuff he does on offense can be mind blowing.
then again, late in playoff games the last few years, hes folded
like.....something that folds a lot...sorry drawing a blank.
Post by Capn'O
Dirk - I'm hesitant to even keep him off this list. He can take over
a game moreso than Garnett but is a damn liability in the clutch
because he doesn't go inside. Doesn't have the defense of Garnett.
Sometimes I love his game but others I really wonder if he is any
better than a guy like Sheed.
you know, that in my mind is a great comparison. a big guy who prefers
to stay outside. but while sheed tends to get in trouble because of
passion...he lets his emotions take control....dirk seems to have the
opposite problem. instead of having the killer instinct and wanting to
take it in, he settles for jumpers and defers too much.
Post by Capn'O
Yao - Dude just keeps breaking his legs but with Adelman i think the
Rockets would have made it much farther this year... oh well
Deron - No knock on Deron but he's not quite at Paul's level
id say those 2 are closer than you think.
Post by Capn'O
DHoward - I think his presence alone is a second round ticket and that
is a franchise player in my book
Then there are guys like Pierce, Billups, Amare, Parker, Baron, Gasol,
Sheed, Tmac and Melo and I'm sure I've forgotten somebody in there.
These are guys that with the right cast can dominate but could also be
the best player on a bad team.
almost all of the pistons starting 5 are kind of like that. rip,
prince...makes you wonder what their numbers would be like on a
different team.

lee
Noah
2008-05-20 22:12:05 UTC
Permalink
im undecided on where to rank nash.  yeah, his defense is horrid...but
some of the stuff he does on offense can be mind blowing.
then again, late in playoff games the last few years, hes folded
like.....something that folds a lot...sorry drawing a blank.
The team certainly has, but I don't think it was him. Both this year
and last in the Spurs series, he was in there making last minute
difficult threes and drives to the hoop and keeping his team in the
game. He was still there in Game 1 last year and was begging to be
let back in even when Tony Parker took his face off. I
you know, that in my mind is a great comparison.  a big guy who prefers
to stay outside.  but while sheed tends to get in trouble because of
passion...he lets his emotions take control....dirk seems to have the
opposite problem.  instead of having the killer instinct and wanting to
take it in, he settles for jumpers and defers too much.
Agreed.
Capn'O
2008-05-21 00:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Watkins
Post by Capn'O
KG - Simply can't take over a game by himself the way the guys above
him can. he comes close on D but just comes up short on offense.
outside of the cassell/spreewell years, hes had some pretty horrid
teams. its hard to say that ANY of the players above him could have
done much with those squads.
ugh, i hate the fact that im defending garnett :)
Yes or no - do you put him on the same level as Kobe, Duncan, or
LeBron???

I don't mean to hate on KG... he's a damn fine player... just
justifying why my answer is no to that question.
Post by Lee Watkins
Post by Capn'O
Deron - No knock on Deron but he's not quite at Paul's level
id say those 2 are closer than you think.
To be honest, I haven't seen enough of Deron and have read too much
Brandon Funston.
Post by Lee Watkins
Post by Capn'O
Then there are guys like Pierce, Billups, Amare, Parker, Baron, Gasol,
Sheed, Tmac and Melo and I'm sure I've forgotten somebody in there.
These are guys that with the right cast can dominate but could also be
the best player on a bad team.
almost all of the pistons starting 5 are kind of like that. rip,
prince...makes you wonder what their numbers would be like on a
different team.
Yeah, the Pistons are soooo underrated. It's amazing how little
attention has come their way even though they've been in the
conference finals for, what, five straight years now???
Noah
2008-05-15 09:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capn'O
Maybe. TJ's coming off of a huge injury and Crawford fills a position
of need and, they NEED scoring. I wouldn't include Lee, that's for
sure.
Yeah, fine. Would you give up TJ for Crawford at $9-10M a year for
the next few? If not, this conversation's pretty much over, as
there's no one else Bryan Colangelo is going to be stupid enough to
take. Plenty of other teams in the NBA need a PG.
Glenn Greenstein
2008-05-14 14:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Not that Barbosa or Diaw are bad additions, but this move is not going to
get you to where Walsh suggested earlier in terms of 2010.
On another note, how likely does anyone here think that Bosh, James, or
whoever the Knicks look to make a move for are just going to be let loose to
join the Knicks. These players are key blocks on their respective teams.
Wouldn't it be a huge loss and step backwards for the said team to allow
such a talent to leave? I'm not saying it never happens, even Shaq got
traded while he was still winning rings, but I would doubt Cleveland would
allow LeBron to go anywhere.
The guy we should look to move, imo, is Crawford since his contract is
long and he has some value _as a player_ whereas Marbury likely
doesn't. Something along the lines of Crawford for Barbosa + change
would suit me well.
I heard a rumor of a Crawford for TJ Ford deal yesterday. Not that I
think that deal has a chance in hell of happening but I would love
love love it if it did. TJ Ford just strikes me as a guy that could
flourish in a D'Antoni offense.
Ford is going to be dealt. Calderon is very capable of running that team as
he proved this past season.
Ford is defenitly a D' Antoni player.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Obviously Zach and Curry would be prime targets to GTFO as well but
they will have more value as their deals shorten a bit.
Zach has value. Any guy that can put up his O numbers consistently has
value.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-14 16:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Greenstein
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Glenn Greenstein
http://tinyurl.com/496psx
Not that Barbosa or Diaw are bad additions, but this move is not going to
get you to where Walsh suggested earlier in terms of 2010.
On another note, how likely does anyone here think that Bosh, James, or
whoever the Knicks look to make a move for are just going to be let loose to
join the Knicks. These players are key blocks on their respective teams.
Wouldn't it be a huge loss and step backwards for the said team to allow
such a talent to leave? I'm not saying it never happens, even Shaq got
traded while he was still winning rings, but I would doubt Cleveland would
allow LeBron to go anywhere.
The guy we should look to move, imo, is Crawford since his contract is
long and he has some value _as a player_ whereas Marbury likely
doesn't. Something along the lines of Crawford for Barbosa + change
would suit me well.
I heard a rumor of a Crawford for TJ Ford deal yesterday. Not that I
think that deal has a chance in hell of happening but I would love
love love it if it did. TJ Ford just strikes me as a guy that could
flourish in a D'Antoni offense.
Ford is going to be dealt. Calderon is very capable of running that team as
he proved this past season.
Ford is defenitly a D' Antoni player.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Obviously Zach and Curry would be prime targets to GTFO as well but
they will have more value as their deals shorten a bit.
Zach has value. Any guy that can put up his O numbers consistently has
value.
Agreed. As I said in my post earlier. A 20 and 10 guy will bring you
something...
Noah
2008-05-20 08:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Agreed.  As I said in my post earlier.  A 20 and 10 guy will bring you
something...
Usually something worse, in our experience. That's how we ended up
with him in the first place. We got him for Steve Francis, remember?
That should speak on his value.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-20 18:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
Agreed. As I said in my post earlier. A 20 and 10 guy will bring you
something...
Usually something worse, in our experience. That's how we ended up
with him in the first place. We got him for Steve Francis, remember?
That should speak on his value.
Portland wanted to move him because of his contract and because of
Aldridge needing those minutes at the 4. I'm not saying he's going to
fetch an all-star but you could get a late 1st rounder or an expiring
contract for him from a team that is thin up front...
Noah
2008-05-20 22:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Rizzo
Portland wanted to move him because of his contract and because of
Aldridge needing those minutes at the 4.  I'm not saying he's going to
fetch an all-star but you could get a late 1st rounder or an expiring
contract for him from a team that is thin up front...
Maybe. Let's hope so. There seems to be a stigma when teams
continually fail to have winning seasons with max players. We
certainly have had enough of those kind of guys on our roster over the
last few years to know.
Capn'O
2008-05-21 00:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noah
Post by Frank Rizzo
Portland wanted to move him because of his contract and because of
Aldridge needing those minutes at the 4. I'm not saying he's going to
fetch an all-star but you could get a late 1st rounder or an expiring
contract for him from a team that is thin up front...
Maybe. Let's hope so. There seems to be a stigma when teams
continually fail to have winning seasons with max players. We
certainly have had enough of those kind of guys on our roster over the
last few years to know.
You know, I keep saying that in the "right situation" Zach could be a
very effective player but it's hard to really fathom what that
situation would be. Cleveland has got to be desperate right now. Ditto
Dallas. And both of those teams have a legit top dog but need post
scoring in the worst way.
Noah
2008-05-21 00:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Capn'O
You know, I keep saying that in the "right situation" Zach could be a
very effective player but it's hard to really fathom what that
situation would be. Cleveland has got to be desperate right now. Ditto
Dallas. And both of those teams have a legit top dog but need post
scoring in the worst way.
It's hard to fathom either of those teams making a real title run with
a starting 4 who can't stop anybody, or that they would invest as
such. It's also hard to see Rick Carlisle and Zach Randolph working
together really well, although I suppose anything's possible.

I could see Cleveland trying for Randolph-for-Wallace, but obviously
that doesn't really help much. If we could dump some dead weight on
them in the process (one of the JJs) it wouldn't be so bad.

Noah
2008-05-20 08:31:28 UTC
Permalink
On May 14, 10:21 am, "Glenn Greenstein"
Post by Glenn Greenstein
Zach has value. Any guy that can put up his O numbers consistently has
value.
This from the guy who said Indiana was nuts to not trade Jermaine
O'Neal for Jamal Crawford and Jared Jeffries. To you, anyone who
you'd like to see gone has value.

There's a reason we're trying so desperately to get rid of our
"valuable" player so soon after acquiring him. Other GMs aren't
stupid enough not to notice. It isn't his first barbecue, either.
Frank Rizzo
2008-05-20 17:58:56 UTC
Permalink
On May 14, 10:21 am, "Glenn Greenstein"
Post by Glenn Greenstein
Zach has value. Any guy that can put up his O numbers consistently has
value.
This from the guy who said Indiana was nuts to not trade Jermaine
O'Neal for Jamal Crawford and Jared Jeffries. To you, anyone who
you'd like to see gone has value.
There's a reason we're trying so desperately to get rid of our
"valuable" player so soon after acquiring him. Other GMs aren't
stupid enough not to notice. It isn't his first barbecue, either.
Actually, Zach does have value. He's overpaid and has a long contract
and that is a problem. But he's a 20+ 10+ guy.
Noah
2008-05-20 22:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Actually, Zach does have value.  He's overpaid and has a long contract
and that is a problem.  But he's a 20+ 10+ guy.
We're going in circles. Let's call this one dead for the moment.
Loading...