DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

Monday Afternoon Links

I have no problem with shooting the 3's if you're open - i have a problem with a 'quota' of 3's made being part of the game plan - it leads me to believe some people (willie, lou, igudoala) will force them to get to that five...he should just encourage the guys to take the open shots they have...not give them a 'make' amount each game...


I kinda like it, actually. Just saying "shoot it when you're open" is too vague. He's saying "we get enough open opportunities to hit 5 threes/game, if you don't, then you aren't shooting when you're open." Gives them a goal.

I haven't seen anyone taking bad threes since he made the statement, Willie's barely shooting them at all.

Excellent analysis on the Cheeks-DiLeo transition. As to the players being rumored . . . Trader Ed: Michael Redd. Wow. That sure would solve a lot of problems, but at what price? Is even feasible? Which brings me to my more feasible pickup: Larry Hughes. Now, here me out. Living out near Chicago, it sure sounds like Hughes could be had for a song. So perhaps some kind of Dalembert package could work. Next, given the recent positive play by not shooting jumpers and by running at every opportunity, perhaps it makes more sense in the short term to just entirely forgo the 3pt play and instead focus on upgrading from Green. I look at the upgrade from Green to Hughes, like going from Wes Helms to Pedro Feliz. Sure, he's flawed, but he's not abysmal. per 36min in '09, Green/Hughes/Redd have shot 3pt at .328/.392/.362; stls at 0.9/1.7/1.0; REB at 2.7/4.3/3.5; eFG% at .484/.475/.499; and pts at 13.4/16.4/20.6. Until the sixers break up the Andres and the youth (Thad/Sweet Lou), they are not going to be able to shoot the 3pt. Redd, despite his early numbers, would be a huge upgrade, but even if that occurred, the 76ers would still need more shooting. Now, since Redd is probably a pipe dream, maybe it makes more sense to add to the athleticism and length. Plus, Brand will be back and Speights is earning the increased time to offset a Dalembert move. Two players could be added to the deal to bring another big body (Gray) to the 76ers and send a guard (Rush) back to chicago. Thoughts on a minor upgrade from Green?

user-pic
john reply to MAS on Jan 12 at 21:06
+/-

There's a reason Hughes could be had for a song. He's a cancer of the highest regard with a crap contract. He doesn't solve the issues - he creates new ones - yes willie green shouldn't start (and he won't when brand comes back) and williams probably should get most of his inutes - but dear god larry hughes isn't the solution

And Redd to me is just more name than substance any more...he'd cost way too much for the return he'd bring

typo - *hear* not "here"

Yuck is all I have to say at that list. God, Larry Hughes is basically Willie Green's twin who had one season of 5,000 steals and is 2 inches taller than Willie.

I do like Lee and Sessions. Also Watson(only a little).

Yes, I am interested in Brandon Bass. Maybe I'm biased because I know him (slightly), but he's an athletic 4 who rebounds well and plays solid defense. Even with Brand back, we could use a guy like that. Right now we're kind of center-heavy.

Dalembert for Hughes is a swap of equal length, yet similarly bad, contracts. I don't mind Lee, Bass and Sessions, but whose minutes are you taking away? When Brand comes back, what happens to Speights? Shouldn't Speights and Young be on the floor more? Wouldn't trading Dalembert and benching Green help solve that? Isn't it reasonable to assume that Hughes would be an upgrade over Green? Let's look at their PER's. Hughes PER from '05/06 - '08/09: 14.0, 12.1, 11.9, 14.7 . . . 15.3 career. Green PER from '05/06 - '08/09: 8.6, 10.3, 12.8, 11.0 . . . 11.1 career. In a similar comparison, Speights PER 20.6 this year compared to Dalembert PER 11.2. Doesn't it seem reasonable to take Dalembert's minutes and increase Speights? Hughes is now a cancer, but his main issue with the bulls is that he is not starting. Basically, isn't there a lot trash in the list above, and, without breaking up the team, couldn't an argument at least be made that Hughes might be worth a flyer for Dalembert?

user-pic
Joe reply to MAS on Jan 12 at 22:30
+/-

Just to add...

Where Hughes and Willie differ is rebounding, assists, and steals.(Willie gets turnovers nod prob) Hughes, as a shooter/scorer, is very similar to Willie.

You should also note that Dalembert has a career 15 PER and posted a 16+ and a 15.6 in the last 2 years.

So, in terms of PER, you are trading a 15 for a 15. One is a younger center. Another is an older SG who. btoh have bad attitudes, but one is worse IMO... the SG.

All things equal, I think you want the center. All things aren't equal though... so I guess it depends on who picks up the minutes and what positions Iguodala/Thad/Lou/Speights/Brand can play.

Hughes' contract is actually a year shorter than Sammy's. Maybe I'm not seeing this clearly, but I really don't see him as an upgrade for the team.

They have a starting SG right now who should not be starting, trading Sammy away for another SG who shouldn't be starting, but you're going to start seems like a lateral move. If you put Hughes on the team, is he going to be happy with the 20 minutes/game that Willie is playing right now? I kinda doubt it.

You would get out from under a bad contract sooner with this trade, but I'd hope there's something more you can do with Sam in a trade. There may not be, but forgetting about the contracts for a moment, the team is better off and more talented with Sammy on the roster rather than Hughes.

user-pic
MAS reply to Joe on Jan 12 at 22:51
+/-

Right. And I think therein lies the argument. 15 for 15 isn't necessarily an upgrade, but it is if you can swap Green (11) and Dalembert (15) and replace it with Hughes (15) and some combination of Young (15 career avg) / Speights (20.6 in limited rookie time). Hughes was born 1/79 vs. Dalembert 5/81 so there isn't a huge age discrepancy. Personally, I'd like to see Mike Miller brought in, but I was just playing with the guys listed in the article above. As a sidenote, I find it amusing that Brian has sponsored Willie's page at basketball reference . com. Just classic.

:) That's my ulterior motive for keeping Willie around.

Mehmet Okur's sitting on 41 points with 9 to go in the 4th.

Hollinger makes note of the fact that New Orleans is having an issue with depth in their front court. Since they're already a good team, perhaps they'd see Sammy as someone who could come in and give them what they need. It would be a tough trade to pull off, but Trade Machine indicates that we could give them Sammy and Kareem Rush in exchange for James Posey, Hilton Armstrong, and Julian Wright. Is that worth doing? Posey would be the impetus for it from our end. Armstrong and Wright don't appear to be particularly capable NBA players, but their contracts are bulky enough to make the trade work. Rush is a throw-in from our end to keep New Orleans from thinking a three-for-one trade for Sammy is a poor idea.

user-pic
john reply to Bart on Jan 13 at 12:00
+/-

I'm not sure that the Hornets would want to give up Posey for Sam and his bad contract - I think the whole Posey thing is grossly over stated and since the sixers arent winning a title this year - not sure this is such a great trade.

Tyson Chandler just has to step it up for them

You know, I'm not sure the Hornets would do this, in fact they probably wouldn't, but it would make sense for them. They're getting good production out of Rasual Butler and Morris Peterson at the two, and absolutely nothing out of the center rotation. Chandler isn't playing well and they have no depth behind him.

Sammy could do very well playing with Paul, they'd be dealing from strength and they'd also be taking back fewer years, they gave Posey the full MLE for 4 years.

For the Sixers, I'd love to plug Posey in as the starting SG. Good shooter, tough defender, athletic. Speights, Brand, Iggy, Posey, Miller with Lou and Thad as your first guys off the bench.

user-pic
Bart reply to Brian on Jan 13 at 12:44
+/-

Yeah, I sometimes put together a virtual trade and then realize that the other team would never go for it. Perhaps the Hornets wouldn't go for this one either, but as you said, it would probably work out quite nicely for both teams. I'm actually proud of myself for once. LOL

user-pic
Joe reply to Bart on Jan 13 at 15:02
+/-

I like Posey a lot. I think that he is probably one of the most underrated wing players of this era. He is playing out of this world right now shooting just under 50% from the field despite about 60% of his shots being from beyond the arc. That is really good.

Also, he is a terrific defender.

Looking at the Hornets, I would say Posey is their 2nd best player right now. Per 36, David West takes 15 shots to score 19 points. James Posey takes 8.7 to score 13. In addition, Posey would probably be a better rebounder than West given more minutes at the 4.

Tyson Chandler has been horrible this year relative to his career. If he can just return to a semblance of his former self, the Hornets are going to be a better team than last year. If he does, the Hornets are probably the only team out west that could compete in a 7 game series with the Lakers.

I think getting Dalembert would be a pretty poor move. They should have just kept Chris Andersen. He is a good player and always has been when given the chance to show it.

user-pic
Bart reply to Joe on Jan 14 at 9:10
+/-

Yeah, but the problem is that they didn't just keep Chris Andersen and the trade deadline is slowly creeping up on them... they have to consider whether or not they want to take a good shot at a playoff run. If they do, it's pretty hard to think Tyson Chandler is going to cut it... he needs help and Dalembert could be that man.

You might be right that Posey is their second best player... he's definitely one of their top four. However, he's playing the same position as two other competent players (Butler and Peterson) who are younger and who have smaller contracts... so, he's the one they'd move if they were going to make a trade. Frankly, it's hard to say it wouldn't be a smart move for them to do so.

Hmm....so...um....eddy currys trade value now may be even worse than before

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122009/news/regionalnews/knicks_sex_scandal_shock_149861.htm

'good'? news for sams trade value?

I can't imagine that Curry's trade value was ever as high as Sam's. I suppose this could help a little, though.


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif