PDA

View Full Version : (RUMOUR) Ridnour doesn't want to sign Extension with Sonics



CableKC
09-18-2006, 04:40 PM
NOTE - Hicks, can you change the subject heading and add "RUMOR:" to the title? I can't figure out a way to do it.

Sorry...I can't paste direct link to the article in the original website...but got the link from the RealGM Wiretap:

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/42247/20060918/sources_ridnour_doesnt_want_to_sign_extension/


Tacoma News Tribune - Sonics' GM Rick Sund has indicated that he is having extension discussions with Luke Ridnour, but sources indicate that the point guard has told friends that he does not want to sign an extension because of his concerns about playing time.

The Sonics acquired Earl Watson last February and the former UCLA point guard saw a lot of 4th quarter action
If there was a PG that I would hope that we could get to replace Tinsley in the upcoming season or the 2007 offseason ( assuming that the Tinsley experiment fails...AGAIN ).....I would want Ridnour as a replacement. I'm not suggesting a Tinsley for Ridnour trade....cuz the Sonics would be stupid to do that trade....but if there was a way for Walsh to work his magic to get Ridnour...I would think that he would be a very solid Run-and-Gun Pass-first PG for the Pacers.

If anything.......Ridnour's one of the more underrated starting quality PGs that is more of a "pass-first" PG. He doesn't turn the ball over as much ( for a PG ) and has a somewhat acceptable offensive game. But given the array of scorers that we have....I don't consider a PG that averages about 11PPG a negative. Same goes for his defense....I don't know what his defense is like...but as long as we have other perimeter defenders on the floor with him...I won't hold that against him.

Kstat
09-18-2006, 05:11 PM
double click right under your thread title on the main link to change it.


I don't know what his defense is like...

If you did you wouldn't want him.

Slick Pinkham
09-18-2006, 05:25 PM
If you did (know what Ridnour's defense was like)you wouldn't want him.

true dat.

When it comes to playing D, Luke feels a disturbance in the force.

Too bad we can't platoon offense/defense like football.

Isaac
09-18-2006, 05:42 PM
Luke is still a better defender then Mike Bibby.

RON ARTEST
09-18-2006, 06:09 PM
Luke is still a better defender than nobody.
actually bibby has gotten much better recently and he has lost 20 pounds this offseason so you can expect him to be much quicker on that end of the floor.

skyfire
09-18-2006, 07:06 PM
Ridnour's game is pretty similar to Tins, except he is worse in almost every category except durability.

No thanks.

BBALL56HACKER
09-18-2006, 08:06 PM
Ridnour stats were better than .J.T. this past year -shooting as well as steals..Plus he plays more than just have the season. I wouldn`t give it a second thought -TRADE. Ridnour is still learning and getting better.

CableKC
09-18-2006, 08:22 PM
I wish that all of our starters can be defensive minded, high-scoring rebounders that have high-basketball IQs. But the reality is that there are very few players.....in this case PGs....that can be a defensive stopper, a high-scoring offensive threat and can play 82 games a season all rolled into one.

To me....all players have deficiencies to their game....it just comes down to pairing him up with other players that can "hopefully" hide or cover up those deficiencies. If a PG is a poor defensive player ( much like Sarunas ), then I would hope that Carlisle will be smart enough to pair him up with a solid defensive perimeter player. If his offense is limited.....then I would hope that he is paired up with a solid offensive lineup that he can dish to.

IMHO.....I think that Ridnour is what I would hope Tinsley would be.....except that Tinsley has a slightly better offensive game then Ridnour.....but Ridnour isn't as injury prone, as poor a FT shooter or turnover prone as Tinsley is.

PacerFan31
09-18-2006, 11:41 PM
Ridnour's game is pretty similar to Tins, except he is worse in almost every category except durability.

No thanks.

Well you have to be on the floor to put up numbers.

It doesn't matter about "every category" if he doesn't even play.

Hicks
09-19-2006, 06:45 AM
People on this forum have an uncanny ability to find the cloud in the silver lining. If a player doesn't do it all, he's not someone they want on the Pacers. You don't always get to have that, folks. Most teams (even the elite ones) don't start 4-5 players that are equally good at offense, defense, and at least one other ability.

Fool
09-19-2006, 09:48 AM
LOL @ people getting scolded for having high standards. Yes, you should all want every marginal player in the league! What wrong with you!?

CableKC
09-19-2006, 12:53 PM
LOL @ people getting scolded for having high standards. Yes, you should all want every marginal player in the league! What wrong with you!?

You're right that its good to hold players to higher standards.....what Hicks and I are trying to point out is that there aren't that many players out there that can do everything. I would love a PG that could be effective on both ends of the court.....but the reality, there are very few PGs that can everything....and GMs that have them place a very high premium on those players....while the rest of the league ( including us ) has to settle for...as you say...a marginal....PG.

For argument's sake......if the Sonics were crazy enough and offered up a trade that boilded down to Tinsley for Ridnour....I would jump on that trade in a second. IMHO..Ridnour is ( at worst ) a player that does not have as high a ceiling as Tinsley....but a far more durable one that has comprable skills. Despite all of Tinsley's potential....to paraphrase PacerFan31....that potential is useless when he's sitting on the bench due to some injury.

But I guess everything comes down to a matter of opinion on a player. :shrug:

SoupIsGood
09-19-2006, 02:08 PM
I dunno, both Tins and Rid have their flaws. I would find it hard to pick which I'd rather have.

Cactus Jax
09-19-2006, 04:52 PM
Was it Jay Bilas that said Luke Ridnour couldn't guard his chair? One of the funnier disses on draft day.

Ultimate Frisbee
09-19-2006, 05:34 PM
Please, no Luke Ridnour!

Robertmto
09-19-2006, 05:56 PM
I want this to be bumped after Tins goes down this year.

skyfire
09-19-2006, 06:30 PM
Well you have to be on the floor to put up numbers.

It doesn't matter about "every category" if he doesn't even play.

My point is, if we ever want Marquis to be starting at SG we are going to need a PG who is a good 3pt shooter. Getting a player who is almost the same as Tins is pointless.

Hicks
09-19-2006, 10:21 PM
LOL @ people getting scolded for having high standards. Yes, you should all want every marginal player in the league! What wrong with you!?

You could have been a bit ruder, do you mind trying to say that again? :)

Fool
09-20-2006, 12:23 AM
Yeah, I apologize. That wasn't the nicest way to put it. I will try again, since you offered.

IMO, its not so much "finding the cloud" its the lack of a "silver lining" in the first place. Ridnour shoots 41% overall, 31% from the arc (that's career, last year he shot under 30%) and has an eFG of 43% on his jumper (.2% better than Stephen Jackson). He's a tiny 6-1, plays no defense (no, he's a defensive liability), and next year is the last year of his deal (which means if you want to keep him, you are going to be back in that same old position of overpaying a guy you hope will improve).

Sure he can run and he averages 7 assist. But as others have said he's like Tinsley without the upside and even easier to back down. Why bring another one in? You've got 12 point guards who are marginal players, who can do a couple things, who can sometimes do another thing, and who definately can't do a one or two things. Either you make a move to ACTUALLY UPGRADE the spot, or you bring in a guy who is all potential and ride out his rocky beginings. You definately don't get someone who's only going to make the platoon at the position bigger.

Slick Pinkham
09-20-2006, 09:39 AM
I don't think that Luke sucks. I merely don't think he's much of an upgrade from Tinsley, assuming JT will not get hurt as much in the future as he has the past 2 years (huge assumption, I know).

If you tell me that Tins will never play >60 games again, then sure I'd take Luke with all his defensive deficiencies.