DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

Sixers Around the Web - Feb. 13

Just a note. In terms of respect for Igudoala, Hoopsworld chatters have always been much more kind to Iguodala as opposed to the ESPN leanings of paid too much makes too much money doesn't score enough

Sixers #8 in the Hollinger rankings.

Not listed because they change daily :)

user-pic
mopey reply to GoSixers on Feb 13 at 13:27
+/-

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

Also pretty cool ^ Sixers are given a higher chance of making the finals than Atlanta, New york, Phoenix, Denver and OK city.

Probably should add:

http://www.foxsportsohio.com/02/11/11/Double-Dribbles-Rough-year-for-Memphis-O/landing.html?blockID=408396&feedID=3724

"* Philadelphia is apparently testing the market to see what it can get for Thaddeus Young. The 76ers like the reserve forward, but feel they could get a mid-first rounder for him and/or shore up the center position.

"* Don’t be surprised if the Sixers look for a taker for rookie disappointment Evan Turner, too. Probably not this month, but quite possibly when the draft gets here in June."

I submitted to brian before it showed up :)

Gotta love the Turner-hate that is rampant in the press. Who the hell Bill Ingram is, I have no idea, but Manny Harris is better than Evan Turner? Hmm...in roughly equal playing time, Turner averages more points, more assists, more rebounds, less turnovers, and shoots a higher percentage.

Bill Ingram!

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to stoned81 on Feb 13 at 15:29
+/-

This isn't true. They haven't had equal playing time. Turner has played double the minutes that Manny has in addition to playing 19 more games total. Manny has a better ppg average per 36, same assists per 36, and one less rebound per 36. Manny has a better TS% and eFG% though a much worse TO% to go along with a slightly higher usage percentage which is not good.

So Bill Ingram is in fact correct, he didn't say that Manny was a better player than Turner. He merely said he's been as good or sometimes better than Turner and taking into account how each was obtained by their respective teams, Manny obviously comes out ahead.

Turner was the second pick, Manny was undrafted, not very hard to ascertain who was the better bargain as the writer said.

I like Turner's future over Manny Harris's. I don't think Harris is an NBA player.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Tray on Feb 13 at 18:27
+/-

Fine, but that doesn't explain why 'current' Turner-truths are always labeled Turner-hate. So, do you like Turner's future better than Landry Fields?

Um... maybe? I don't know that Landry Fields has a lot of room for improvement. Fields can make outside shots, get offensive rebounds and put-backs, cut away from the ball, and rebound. I don't see a whole lot of offensive repertoire, and it's hard to see him becoming a much better shooter or rebounder. He's already averaging 7 rebounds, shooting 39% from three, 51.5% from the field. There isn't a great deal of untapped athleticism or skill. I suppose he'll score more in the future, but probably at the cost of his very high efficiency, as right now all he is is a kind of perimeter garbageman. Turner has much more than size going for him, he's a creative ball-handler and passer. Many players come into the league with broken jump shots and get much better; it's one of the things coaching can really correct. Yeah, I see considerably greater upside for Turner.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Tray on Feb 13 at 19:52
+/-

Interesting that it is said that there isn't a great deal of untapped athleticism or skill regarding Fields, couldn't the same be said about Turner? Also interesting is the label of Fields as being just a perimeter garbageman which is pretty much all Turner is at this moment too right? Or is he more of a miniature swiss army knife perimeter garbageman?

And I must reference Iguodala on the bit about coming into the league with broken jump shots and coaching supposedly correcting it. Coaching solving that is way easier said than done.

No, Turner creates (for himself, for others) and Fields doesn't. Fields takes the open shots the defense gives him, puts back misses, and crudely attacks the basket. Epitome of a fourth-fifth option.

Landry Fields came into a great situation for his skills.. and I give the guy credit, but can see his career taking the same path as Courtney Lee

user-pic
Tray reply to T McL on Feb 13 at 21:02
+/-

I think Landry can sustain what he's doing, but I just don't think there's much more there. Lee's success turned out to be a function of his being in a really great situation. Fields isn't on that loaded of a team, so I give him more credit than Lee.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Tray on Feb 13 at 20:59
+/-

Perimeter guys with plus-ball skills like Turner will ALWAYS have more upside...assuming that they can do the other things as well (defend, rebound, etc...)

Turner's superior ball skills clearly gives him an edge of upside over Fields, IMO. Whether he achieves it or not remains to be seen, but I think I'll give the 2009-2010 consensus Division I Men's College Basketball Player of the Year more than 54 games to see if he can achieve that upside potential.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Tray on Feb 13 at 23:26
+/-

If Fields is the epitome of a fourth-fifth option, I'm assuming you think Turner is considered, or is it still the upside to be, a third or better option, no? I mean, right now he's our 7th or 8th option so I guess he still retains the upside label. While Landry is what he is? Landry is a better player at this stage and likely will continue to be if for nothing else than the capability to spot up and knock down open shots, something Turner has not shown a propensity to do to this point. Turner isn't that adept at creating for himself either, as he's being given credit for doing by some.

Yeah, no question that Landry's doing more for his team right now. He's scoring efficiently, he's rebounding, hustling, etc. But I do indeed think that Turner can be a third option (and then again, he might not be one, but there's a very real chance, I think), and the more the ball is in his hands, the more impact his playmaking will have on the game.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Tray on Feb 14 at 8:38
+/-

I think that Turner has all of the tools to be a "closer" - the guys that you give the ball to at the top of the key in a tied game with less than a minute to go. He has the handle to create his own shot. He is a superior passer for a wing player...so he can draw a double-team and find the open man.

Can Fields do that?

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Tray on Feb 14 at 8:53
+/-

Yes, and see, that's where I throw my hands up in the air and say we have to trade this guy - when you say the more he has the ball in his hands the more his playmaking will impact the game. We don't need another facilitator/initiator/primary ball handler on this team. We have two that are more than capable at that. We need complementary pieces around them, not a guy that comes in and does a poor man's job of what they already do.

And Turner will never succeed in a closer role ala Lou. He doesn't have the get-by ability to pose a threat going to the rim which in turn means a defender can just sit back and play off him and force him to take jumpers which we all agree he's not very good at.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to eddies' heady's on Feb 14 at 9:58
+/-

Please explain and substantiate your declarative statement that "Turner will never succeed in the closer role ala Lou". The guy did it both in high school and in college. He has played FIFTY-FOUR NBA games.

Please share with me the evidence you have that allows you to say unequivocally that he WILL NOT be able to do it in the NBA.

Thanks.

Actually, I'd like a little bit more than anecdotal evidence that Lou had succeeded in the role

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to GoSixers on Feb 14 at 10:52
+/-

Touche.

I would say that if the bar to eventually become the "closer" on this team is Lou, that is a pretty freaking low bar to clear, IMO.

And I think if you did a study of perimeter players, you'd find that more often than not guys who struggle from three in their rookie seasons substantially improve.

Thanks GoSixers for putting up the articles, there's some cool stuff in there. My favorite line was from Hawes, "There has been a point where defense was an afterthought to me." That was so good it made my day, it's like there was just a single point in time, really?. I am glad he's having fun though and enjoying the team more, and I'm not even being sarcastic.

I'll be honest, I don't read the articles I post closely - i scan them to see if they're 'legitimate' or bleacher report variety. Plus - there's a ton of stuff that is just reprinted from original sources and I try to avoid repeating the stuff.

But I am glad you enjoy it, I find it interesting just to see what's out there about the sixers that isn't sixer related

PS - has anyone noticed that articles on philly.com 'reload' every 10 seconds or so so your history is ALL that same damn article - god i hate philly.com

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Feb 13 at 14:30
+/-

John, good job as usual; do you guys think if Thad is put on the market, it is more because they won't be able to afford him, or that he has good trade value?

I've argued against putting him on the market regardless of how they see him because his value will be depressed by the fact that he's about to be a restricted free agent (and there's the new CBA to consider)

I don't know that the sixers should trade Young unless they can improve at the center position - their one glaring (most glaring maybe) weakness right now. Remember that story about the 'best' 5 man set in the nba? Thaddeus Young is the power forward in that set. If this year is about making the playoffs and competing in the first round - then you shouldn't trade Thad - if it's not you should trade Thad and Lou and Collins should let Jrue and Turner off their leashes.

Kate Fagan wrote a complimentary article about Elton Brand today here. I wonder how she feels about Iguodala these days.

I'm for not trading Thad. I'd hope under the new CBA that his contract won't be nearly as bad as we fear. And I feel a bit more comfortable giving Thad a slightly bloated contract than some other (and older) vets.) Similar to how Iguodala's contract was "safer" than Brands, because its much easier to trade players in their prime.

Depending on if there is a franchise players tag and how it's used, the sixers could use it on thad.

user-pic
johnrosz on Feb 13 at 14:41
+/-

I bet Phoenix would give you a lot for Thad. I would only be happy if they got Gortat and a pick for him

People keep saying this like it's something Phoenix would do. I don't believe they would. Why does phoenix need more tweener wing players who can't really defend?

To be fair Young has made huge strides defensively this year. He's far from great but average is within reach soon.

He's better (though again, I discount a lot of what happened last year due to a coaching philosophy that was insnae) but is he really worth giving up a center of quality (even Gortat's quality) if you don't want to sign him long term? And, if you do want to sign him long term, the sixers offering him around the league indicates maybe that they don't, so why not just wait until he's a free agent and sign him?

I don't see Thad alone, being a trade chip, maybe combined with those expiring contracts they encourage a team to give up a big man (camby or przybilla at best), but alone, I don't see him having much value, but combined with kapono and songiala, thus saving teams money.

Gortat is under the '60 day' restriction that I believe comes off before the deadline.

Grotat and Frye/CHildress (one of em) for kapono, songaila, young.

I think that's a deal phoenix would do. I don't think it's a deal the sixers would do.

user-pic
johnrosz reply to GoSixers on Feb 13 at 14:49
+/-

Thad is ideal for the Phoenix system.

The Phoenix 'system' doesn't work, Nash and Hill are aging, they have some bad long term deals, taking on Young to then sign him to a long term deal is a bad idea. They have an owner who was killed by the real estate crash, I wouldn't be surprised to see the suns for sale sooner or later

He doesn't help them win the playoffs this year - so why bother trading for him if the sixers obviously don't want him - just wiat until the off season

user-pic
johnrosz on Feb 13 at 14:53
+/-

I don't think below average defense is something that Phoenix would be too worried about. They like to win games by outscoring the opponent, Thad can certainly help them in that regard.

Agree with Xsago, he still falls asleep on the perimeter a lot, but I'll give him credit for battling with bigger 4's, and trying to box out guys twice his size on the glass

Would Gortat really be a long term answer at C? Is he a guy who can finish passes around the rim? Can you run a P&R effectively with him? Anyone playing alongside Nash is maximized. So I'm interested to know how he has played for the Suns.

Can he defend
Can he strengthen the soft gooey center of the sixers defense that is represented by Spencer Hawes
Can he at least make teams a little afraid to drive down the middle
Can he clear defense rebounds and block some shots.

Those are more important to me.

user-pic
mopey reply to GoSixers on Feb 13 at 15:19
+/-

I'd say yes. He's kind of a scary looking dude. I wouldn't want to drive into the lane with him waiting there for me.

user-pic
tk76 reply to GoSixers on Feb 13 at 15:22
+/-

Those questions are less up in the air. He's a decent rebounder and active defender. Although not dominant in either area.

user-pic
Court_visioN reply to tk76 on Feb 13 at 18:12
+/-

I haven't seen Gortat in Phoenix very much but from what I've seen from him (albeit in limited minutes) Gortat did a good job of rolling to the hoop on pick and rolls.

His raw numbers in Phx seem promising.

The kind of guy a team like the spurs stash with a second round pick for a few years until he's 'ripe'

user-pic
tk76 reply to GoSixers on Feb 13 at 15:28
+/-

"His performance in the gold medal game against Team USA (22 points, 14 rebounds, 3 blocks) was particularly eye-opening."

From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Lucas-Nogueira-5957/#ixzz1DsAxLKpJ
http://www.draftexpress.com

Read that too...couple years of progression maybe he's not a guy who is stowed but a lottery pick.

The sixers won't get him :)

user-pic
tk76 reply to GoSixers on Feb 13 at 18:08
+/-

Probably someone with more scouting know-how like Derek can comment on whether I am right...

But when looking at these athletic, thin 7 footers, I think that defensive rebounding separates them- even at a young age. Guys like Sam and Camby have rebouonded well at every level. While guys like Alabi or Steven Hunter don't.

Tall, thin players have too high of a center of gravity to ever box people out effectively. To make up for this they need to use length, anticipation, aggressiveness and quick hops. And it seems like a majority of them either lack the aggression or the abilty to be effective defensive rebounders. And if they are not, then they generally are a waste.

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to GoSixers on Feb 13 at 15:43
+/-

Collins was quoted in Fagen's Minn. game article as saying Young and Meeks being called upon as late game defenders has really surprised him, but they have improved bigtime with their rotations and their speed is a big asset in closing out on shooters. Sounds like a] a coach who doesn't want to trade Thad and b] a coach that would have loved Sam.

I don't even think of Thad as a s.f. anymore. I see him playing more physical and getting slightly stronger and thriving in his p.f. role. Tk, I agree with you, keep him and when Elton leaves get another bruiser to split time with him unless he becomes Jamieson like.

Rajon Rondo had one of those 'weak' triple doubles today.

ESPN sent me a text about it

They didn't send me one when Jrue got his though

I think all that talk about Cleveland not being the worst team in the league may have been premature. Washington is beating them by 20, in Cleveland.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 19:33
+/-

Oh of course they're the worst team in the league, there's nothing there at all. Their best players are pretty bad players.

And look at Wall with the 11 assist, 0 turnover line, 3 minutes into the third quarter.

A Brian favorite, Aldridge, had 36 on 17 shots tonight and now is averaging 29.6 on the month, on extremely good shooting. It's his fourth game with 36 or greater in February.

Ed Davis played most of the second half and played Blake Griffin to a draw - 13 and 14 on 6-8 shooting, 3 blocks. Davis basically has the same stats as Favors, a little better, and has shown more flashes than Favors has.

user-pic
tk76 reply to Tray on Feb 13 at 21:06
+/-

But isn't the main difference that Favors has the rare combination of athleticism and a big/broad frame where he can develop into a physically dominant player. Where Davis is thinner to where you have to hope he can be like a Camby. And that type of pogo-stick thin/tall center is a lot easier to find than the Dwight Howard athletic bruiser.

user-pic
Tray reply to tk76 on Feb 13 at 21:15
+/-

DeAndre Jordan used to be really slim. Maybe Davis can put on some weight. No way he stays this small. It's true that pogo sticks are easier to find than bruisers, but Davis rebounds a whole lot better than your average skinny pogo stick. He's already proven he's not a Steven Hunter. I think it's actually pretty promising that he's so ridiculously slender and is already rebounding as well, per minute, as people like Gortat, Horford, Hibbert,and Garnett. Of course, Favors was at least touted as being an elite defender, and for that reason alone you take him over Davis, even if Davis can rebound as well, score as much, and block more shots.

user-pic
Joe reply to tk76 on Feb 13 at 21:20
+/-

Not a Marcus Camby fan? I mean the guy is #9 alltime right now in rebound percentage.

Marcus Cambys aren't growing on trees. I mean we, as Sixers fans, were lucky to see 2 guys also in the top 15 play center for this team for the last 10 years, but they are rare my man...

user-pic
tk76 reply to Joe on Feb 13 at 23:17
+/-

I was trying to give best case in both instances. Camby is quite a player. But even with the rebounding and blocks, its still ideal to have the physical presence.

As for Jordan, he always had the wide frame. He just is growing into it. Sort of like Favors- and why Jordan was an elite prospect before his disappointing freshman year.

I'm very impressed with how Andre Miller has made Aldridge into more than a guy who shoots long twos. Miller deserves a medal. As for Aldridge, the scoring is great. I'm also a huge fan of a 6'11" power forward grabbing 3 defensive boards in 41 minutes. That's stellar.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 23:42
+/-

He averages 5.5 in 39 minutes. Brand averages 5.5 in 34. The difference is there but it isn't huge. I'm sure we can find games where Brand did nothing on the boards.

Cleveland's downfall has me appreciating Lebron a lot more. If Kobe left the Lakers they would still be a 45 win team. Cleveland also doesnt have any capspace, Lebron would have been screwed for the rest of his career had he stayed with Cleveland.

user-pic
Tray reply to Tson on Feb 13 at 21:32
+/-

If LeBron left the Heat they'd be a 45-win team, so, while I agree, the subtractive argument doesn't really show as much as you'd think. The real comparison is what Kobe could have done with the Cleveland roster, not what would happen if the two bail their respective teams. Because then you're comparing apples to oranges. Now, I think if you put Kobe on Cleveland last year, they'd be a 3rd or 4th seed.

Eh, I think that's a stretch. LeBron had to do everything for that Cleveland team. Defend, distribute, score, rebound. I don't think Kobe's really capable of carrying a squad at this point of his career, and I don't think he was ever capable to the degree LeBron did it in Cleveland.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 21:44
+/-

So you only see them as a 5th-6th seed? I think without LeBron/with Kobe, they'd still be a fine defensive team. So it would be like the pre-Gasol Lakers teams (one of which won 45 games with Kobe, Odom and nothing else), but with defense. In the East, that could win you 48 games.

I just don't see it. They were a fine defensive team because LeBron could shut down the best player on the other team, at the one through the four.

Would you trade for Darko?

What would we trade? And what's his injury status?

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 21:40
+/-

All I know is that Kahn is so crazy about Darko that he would want vastly more than he's worth, which isn't much. Darko's a very inefficient offensive player for his size and a below-average rebounder who turns the ball over a lot; all he does well is block shots. He does that pretty well, but whatever.

user-pic
sher reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 21:45
+/-

He reportedly practiced today. What about for Darius Songalia straight up or for a combination of Hawes and Battie?

user-pic
Joe reply to sher on Feb 13 at 21:48
+/-

You are taking Nocioni at a minimum. And probably giving up some picks as well.

Yeah, I just took a look at his contract. I think that's too much to pay for a guy who's really a backup big. Maybe not too much to pay for a formed team, but for a team that needs the starting center, it's a bad contract. And I don't think Darko's a starting center.

Since we're going off on random tangents, I'd like to touch on the LeBron for MVP debate. Here's how I see it:

LBJ + Wade + Bosh in Miami probably equals 60 wins.

Wade + Bosh probably equals 45+ wins

LBJ + Bosh probably equals 45+ wins

LBJ + Wade w/out Bosh probably equals 60 wins

Orlando without Dwight is maybe a 35-win team, and that's really stretching it.

Chicago without Rose is probably .500, maybe below.

Any arguments with any of that?

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 21:52
+/-

I think it's true but that it doesn't mean Rose and Howard are more valuable. You're basically suggesting that LeBron's less valuable because he plays with more talent. But that has nothing to do with LeBron's play. If Pujols went to the Yankees no one would think that would diminish his value, even though they'd be perfectly alright without him. I don't see the sense in rewarding players for having crappy teammates. Then the MVP award becomes the triumphing over a mediocre roster award. If LeBron switched places with Rose, Chicago would be a lot better than they are now. If LeBron could take Cleveland to the Finals one year and get a 1st seed another, it stands to reason Chicago would be a top two team in the East with him.

I've always interpreted the MVP as the player who is most valuable to his team, not just the best overall player.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 22:04
+/-

In that case you could start bringing up people like Griffin, because without him the Clippers would simply implode. Even though right now, I don't even think Griffin's a top 20 player. But he might be one of the five or ten players with the most positive impact on his team's record. I would really prefer to just reward the best player. It's weird to give a guy the MVP, knowing that other players had substantially better seasons.

The Clippers are 20-34 with Griffin and an unbelievably favorable schedule to this point. Unless you're saying they'd be like 5-49 without him, I don't think you can make the case he's been the most valuable to his team.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 22:22
+/-

No, but maybe top ten. Going by the subtracting players from their teams method, I agree Rose or Howard are the choices.

The Clippers have a better supporting cast around Griffin than half the league. Gordon, Davis, Jordan... Has anybody forgotten them?. Griffin isn't even the best player on his team. Gordon is. They lose Gordon to an injury and suddenly they lose to the Cavs...

Shh, didn't anyone tell you Griffin is the savior and the Clippers are future champions because of him?

user-pic
Joe reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 22:23
+/-

How many wins does Minny have without Love?

-5?

Heh. I guess it would be fair to say Love is a +13. If they get to 20 on the season, you've got an argument.

user-pic
johnrosz on Feb 13 at 21:46
+/-

Is it time to lift Aldridge off the Depressed Fan hate list? Guy is playing some ridiculous basketball offensively, he's never going to be a special rebounder or defender, but I've been impressed with how much his game has grown. It's not like he's doing it inefficiently anymore, and they're winning with him as the focal point

user-pic
Joe reply to johnrosz on Feb 13 at 21:55
+/-

He has been hot.

How has his game grown statistically (or otherwise), though? I don't see any growth when I look there from his rookie year compared to this year, except that he is shooting more and has gotten more efficient, but still below average in terms of efficiency for his position.

Brand has had a much more impressive season to me.

user-pic
Tray reply to Joe on Feb 13 at 22:12
+/-

There's something to be said for being able to throw the ball into a player over and over and get 25-30 points out of him. I don't think Brand would be too efficient at that level of usage.

Here's a question for you, would the Sixers be a better team if they simply swapped brand for Aldridge? I don't think so.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 22:20
+/-

We'd be much better off in some ways, in the fourth quarter of close games we'd be giving the ball to Aldridge rather than Williams. Overall I think it's about a wash.

user-pic
Rich reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 23:38
+/-

If Sammy was here, absolutely they would be better.

As is, an Aldridge/Hawes frontcourt is really iffy, so I think it would be a minimal difference either way, probably in Aldridge's favor. It's kind of hard to mix and match when the team has a ridiculously glaring hole at one position.

Brand does a ton of covering for the weak center position, I don't see Aldridge doing any of that. The extra usage, at a depressed efficiency, on the offensive end wouldn't make up for the defensive end IMO.

user-pic
Rich reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 23:46
+/-

Yeah, but to call out Aldridge because of Hawes' deficiencies kind of makes arguing over it useless. If there is a competent defensive big paired along with either of them, I take Aldridge.

To be fair, Aldridge has played with some excellent rebounders in the frontcourt over his career. Not making excuses for him, but his role has been to score the ball over his career, not do the dirty work.

user-pic
Tray reply to Rich on Feb 14 at 0:06
+/-

Well, to be fair to Brian, the excellent defensive rebounders aren't around right now (Przybilla's back, but playing very limited minutes), and the rebounding's still not there. In fact, he hasn't improved at all as a defensive rebounder this season. But look, he's become way more of a legit interior force, as opposed to the soft jump-shooter he was, and that's not all Miller. Or mostly Miller. You watch him and it's not just his getting the ball more in spots where he didn't in the past, it's what he's doing now when he gets the ball in the post that he didn't do in the past.

user-pic
Rich reply to Tray on Feb 14 at 0:23
+/-

I didn't say he was a good defensive rebounder. I just said he's been accustomed to having a guy pick up the boards for him. That's not an excuse for him (more like a criticism), but that's the way that guy is on defense. He's not changing.

In comparison with Brand, who has Hawes paired with him, the defensive glass is the same. Brand with a great guy in Sammy was dreadful on that end so he's probably not as good as his numbers say. So with the rebounding all being the same, I'll take Aldridge and that's not a slight to EB, who has been awesome.

user-pic
Joe reply to Tray on Feb 13 at 22:22
+/-

Theres something to be said for a lot of things.

If I'm building around a 25 PPG scorer, I'd like him to be efficient normally.

In case you aren't watching, Steph Curry is absolutely dominating his matchup with Westbrook on ESPN right now. It isn't even close.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 22:25
+/-

Is that really true, because Curry has 23 on 18 shots, 1 FTA, and Westbrook has 21 on 14, 9 FTA. Now yeah, Curry's had a way better floor game, but I don't know if Westbrook's been dominated.

user-pic
Joe reply to Tray on Feb 13 at 22:27
+/-

Curry has pretty much taken him at will.

Was Durant guarding him that possession?

They were doubling him the last four or five possessions, he was picking them apart. Pretty dominant game by Curry.

Curry also had 2 boards, 13 assists, 2 steals and 0 turnovers. Westbrook had 0 boards, 5 assists, 1 steal and 6 turnovers. It wasn't even close.

Normally I'm not a big Aldridge fan, but now I am rooting for him to score 40 every game and get rebounds. Just for the chance that it makes Portland feel that they don't need Camby as much. In fact they really should just ship Camby over here now before he comes back from injury to prevent shaking things up again in their lineup.

In DeMarcus Cousins news, the Kings are going to win on the road in Phoenix tonight on the back of a dominant effort by none other than Samuel Dalembert. 18 points on 12 shots, 15 boards, 3 blocks and only 2 turnovers. Imagine how many wins they'd have if they didn't have Cousins dragging them down every night and played Sammy 35mpg.

Dalembert not only scored 12 points in the fourth quarter, but he didn't physically assault any teammates in the locker room. Nor was he kicked off the team plane.

user-pic
stan reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 22:49
+/-

I liked Dalembert, but he wasn't worth the 10+ million/season he was paid. He wouldn't be such a burden if his salary was 5-7 mill/season.

Now our starting center only makes 3 million so we are in excellent shape then!

user-pic
Joe reply to stan on Feb 13 at 22:57
+/-

7 million like MLE money. Dalembert would get that in his sleep I'd think.

I know a lot of people think he wasn't worth 10 million or whatever, but for a top 10 NBA center, he isn't going to make MLE money most likely. Gortat just got how much?

Gortat got the MLE, that was the most he could get.

I think there's a decent chance Dalembert signs a deal similar to Gortat's, if not cheaper. There's a stupid stigma there that's going to keep his price down.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 23:45
+/-

I think I'd rather develop the rookie, but sure, Dalembert's a better player and should be the starter if, for some reason, they were trying to win now. Which they shouldn't be.

Sam always seems to have great games in Phoenix

Would a Holiday-Curry back court work? We would be undersized at 4 positions with a Holiday-Curry-Iguodala-Brand lineup.

Would GS do this trade ?:
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=67hlfvn + a future 1st.

user-pic
Joe reply to stev on Feb 13 at 22:54
+/-

Highly doubt they would trade Curry and take back Lou, who is a worse fit with Ellis.

Iguodala and Brand aren't undersized at the 3/4. If they had a legit center, they'd only be undersized at one position, SG. Or they'd only have to be undersized at one position, depending on who you put Jrue on.

Personally, I think Curry would be an ideal fit between Iguodala and Jrue.

I don't see any way GSW would make that deal. I think you might have a chance of building a deal around Turner and a first, but not Lou. He's so redundant when they already have Monta.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Feb 13 at 23:48
+/-

If Turner had only played better this year, I think they would do that. And even if Turner were playing better, I'd still do it. Right now though, I think at least half their front office would find the idea nuts.


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif