PDA

View Full Version : Our point guard situation disturbs me



Anthem
12-02-2007, 11:18 PM
Owens and Ballboy both got DNP-CDs tonight. Quis played every moment that Tinsley was off the court, and none that he was on. This is a problem.

Over the summer I thought we had an embarrassment of riches at the PG spot. Owens looked good in summer league, Diener was a big-time shooter with "swagger," and I had foolish hope against hope that Tinsley would become a new player under Obie. I didn't think it would happen, but I had hope.

Now look at us. Tinsley is off the charts amazingly good... better than I'd dared hope. But Diener has been flat-out awful. I haven't seen enough of Owens to have an opinion, but evidently Jim has one and it's not good. So we have Marquis running the point, and he's forcing things. It's not his best position... he seems to play better off the ball. Maybe he'll get it, so I'm open to giving him time. But if he goes out with an injury, or (much worse) if we lose Tinsley for any amount of time, we are absolutely toast.

We should be thinking about trades. We need to acquire a good backup point guard. I don't know who gets moved to make it happen, but it needs to happen. Farmar, Jack, JC Superstar, Brevin Knight, I don't care. But this is not a good long-term situation.

Infinite MAN_force
12-02-2007, 11:35 PM
We should have resigned Keith Mcleod instead of bringing in Diener.

dohman
12-02-2007, 11:47 PM
anthem I fully agree with you. In the preseason I thought all the PG problems we have had since mark jackson left might actually be over. What is it about the pacers that makes PG's lose their shot. First is was saraunus and now travis.

AesopRockOn
12-02-2007, 11:48 PM
We should have signed anyone with feet instead of bringing in Diener.

Fixed. ;)

avoidingtheclowns
12-02-2007, 11:49 PM
tradewise...i would see what kind of trade we could make with houston, portland or seattle. all three have logjams at PG (james/alston/francis/head/brooks, west/watson/ridenour and blake/jack/rodriguez/green). portland seems more likely.

it does look like deciding to take our chances with diener over keith was a poor one but you can't really blame TPTB for that, bringing in obrien, the pacers desperately need shooting, keith isn't a shooter and diener is... the problem is diener's shooting hasn't been there.

i'm not totally why andre can't see any time off the bench. he has seemingly played well (especially defensively) in the limited minutes he's received.

Infinite MAN_force
12-03-2007, 12:00 AM
I could live with dieners shortcomings if he was really money from three like he is supposed to be... I just don't understand how he could suddenly be shooting so poorly.

Dr. Goldfoot
12-03-2007, 12:39 AM
I think part of the problem with Diener is his previous experience was too limited to really gauge his ability to be a threat from three. Coming into the season, he'd only shot 107 3's. Granger already had 81 attempts thru 17 games this season. We are talking about a guy who has 23 free throw attempts in his career. After the Suns game Jamaal will have played more minutes this season than Travis has in his career. That's something to consider. It's really something that should have been considered prior to his 3 year deal. Did other teams have this guy on speed dial this off-season?

Owens has even less experience but he is from Indy.

There's room on the roster to sign a free agent but no money in the pocket. Plus all of the free agents are either too old, no better than what we have or holding out for too much money.

He aren't we still paying Green. He's not doing anything is he?

Dr. Goldfoot
12-03-2007, 12:57 AM
After looking at some of Diner's stats, I'm really amazed at the expectations many of us had for this guy. He will set career season highs with 12 more rebounds, 13 more assists, 5 steals, 11 appearances, 26 FG attempts, 4 TO's and 54 points.

We've done a pretty good job at over rating the backup point guards the last few years really. Wasn't everybody at some point early on pretty high on Orien, Snap, Diener, Owens and some were even calling for McLeod to be the starter this season. AJ, Runi, DA & Strickland were nothing spectacular but at least contributed at some level. I think Jamaal or Daniels going down for an extended period of time will force them to trade somebody they don't want to give up on.

Doddage
12-03-2007, 01:04 AM
Tinsley is 6th in the league in assists/gm, up there with the top PGs in the league. That would be terrible if we lost that.

Dr. Goldfoot
12-03-2007, 01:26 AM
Tinsley is 6th in the league in assists/gm, up there with the top PGs in the league. That would be terrible if we lost that.

I couldn't agree more.

Hoop
12-03-2007, 01:50 AM
I'm not ready to give up on Diener or Owens just yet. Though I am worried about the minutes Tins is having to play. It's just one month into the season, 80% of the season is left. In the mean time I hope they're keeping an eye open for available backup PG's. :hmm:

Peck
12-03-2007, 01:50 AM
Diener was a no cost pickup that if he did good Bird would look like he struck gold. However if he failed (which so far is the case) then it's hard to fault anyone on this because of the cost.

However we desperately need to get someone in here to help run the point for a few min. a game.

God help us if Jamaal goes down with an injury of some kind.

Keith McCloud was fine by me but I bet he wanted the lower level exemption at least.

Jamaal has really and truely done a 180 this season and he keeps talking about how nice it is to have a coaching staff finally have faith in him.

I have no real gripes about his play, sure he could be a better defender, but when you run an open style like we do you have to give the PG the power to miss some shots and make a bad pass. Just as long as they don't overdue it which Jamaal is not.

However, I don't care about any history of this guy at all when I say this, but even the healthiest of pg's get injured and very very few can go for this many min. for the length of a season.

Young
12-03-2007, 02:23 AM
I'm not to worried about the situation.

I think that Travis can play. He just doesn't have any confidence right now. Give him some time. He has very little NBA experience. One thing I do know about him is that the Magic fans sure liked him it seemed. I think they liked him a lot more than Carlos Arroyo.

As for Owens I don't know what you expect. He can give us some good defense here and there but he is a third stringer. I'm fine with him on the roster but never thought he would give us big time production.

I'll say this I would love to get Luther Head from the Rockets. I know that Luther is a shooter and a good athlete. I don't know that he can play the point any better than Marqius though.

I don't think we have a lot of good opitions to get an upgrade at the backup point guard spot to be honest. I don't know what we would give up for anyone decent.

I'm not to worried about it. Jamaal is a big part of this team and he is going to have to play a lot of minutes being the point guard. There is only one point guard. Jamaal plays 34 minutes a game. It's a lot but not enough to have me worried. He will be fine.

I think that if Diener would play some defense then Jim would play him. Diener's offense will come with time but his defense is what is keeping him out of games, atleast that is what i'm thinking.

aceace
12-03-2007, 02:44 AM
I thought McCleod played decent for the time he was here and coming to a new team. Wonder what he's making this year compared to Deiner? He was in the alleged bar fight which might have had something to do with him being gone. It shut the door on Snap when he was hangin with Jax... Of course he would still be in the league if played D like Jaxs.

skyfire
12-03-2007, 04:19 AM
He aren't we still paying Green. He's not doing anything is he?

Orien Greene recently signed with the New Zealand Breakers in the NBL (Australia/NZ league). Should play his first game this weekend.

Mourning
12-03-2007, 05:41 AM
Diener was a no cost pickup that if he did good Bird would look like he struck gold. However if he failed (which so far is the case) then it's hard to fault anyone on this because of the cost.

However we desperately need to get someone in here to help run the point for a few min. a game.

God help us if Jamaal goes down with an injury of some kind.

Keith McCloud was fine by me but I bet he wanted the lower level exemption at least.

Jamaal has really and truely done a 180 this season and he keeps talking about how nice it is to have a coaching staff finally have faith in him.

I have no real gripes about his play, sure he could be a better defender, but when you run an open style like we do you have to give the PG the power to miss some shots and make a bad pass. Just as long as they don't overdue it which Jamaal is not.

However, I don't care about any history of this guy at all when I say this, but even the healthiest of pg's get injured and very very few can go for this many min. for the length of a season.

I fully aggree with what Peck wrote here and what Anthem wrote in his opening post here, including the positive part about Jamaal and the fact that we do need a backup PG that can meaningfully fill in when called upon.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

wintermute
12-03-2007, 08:31 AM
just wanted to clarify travis diener's contract. he's not that cheap - he's guaranteed almost $5m over the next 3 years. that's first round pick money - about what danny and shawne are pulling in and roughly 2x the min.

generally, you sign scrubs to min. 1 year deals only. why not? every year there are plenty of scrubs who are happy to take minimum deals. if they show anything then you can sign them to a longer deal next time.

if you sign a guy for 3 years though, you're expecting him to be in the rotation - else why would he need to stick around that long?

so diener to me has been a huge disappointment so far. can't help wondering whether keith mcleod would have been a better choice.
would he have signed for that 3 year $5m contract that diener got?

wintermute
12-03-2007, 08:56 AM
Orien Greene recently signed with the New Zealand Breakers in the NBL (Australia/NZ league). Should play his first game this weekend.

heard about that but wondered why he didn't sign for the d-league instead. well, the nbl probably pays better. but in the d-league he could have improved his pg skills and his shooting. with that improvement together with his already nba-level defense, he's sure to get a call-up some time. in fact he started a few games for sacramento this season before they got udrih, so it's not like he's off the nba radar.

not dissing the nbl, but orien will probably be the most athletic guy on the breakers. not a good incentive for improving one's skills.

Unclebuck
12-03-2007, 09:13 AM
This was a big topic of conversation at the forum party. If Tinsley goes down we are in trouble, if Tinsley goes down and Daniels is injured we are in deep, deep trouble.

I made the point that I would like to see what Diener would do if he was forced to play 30 minutes a game for a two weeks worth of games. I believe he would at least start hitting some shots. The Pacers would suffer, but maybe he could re-gain some confidence.

But the pacers need to acquire a better back-up because Tinsley cannot continue to play this many hard minutes and Daniels is too injury prone.

McKeyFan
12-03-2007, 09:28 AM
This was a big topic of conversation at the forum party. If Tinsley goes down we are in trouble, if Tinsley goes down and Daniels is injured we are in deep, deep trouble.

Okay, suppose that happens.

Who can play point for us besides Deiner and Owens?

Shawne? Granger? I can't see it.

Maybe Dunleavey could do a point forward thing.

Dr. Goldfoot
12-03-2007, 10:01 AM
That's the problem. Nobody else can really play the point. I suppose Granger & Dunleavy could be counted on to play a few sequences at the one but not an entire game. Defense would be a real experience too. Can you imagine Danny trying to guard some of the quicker points?

Major Cold
12-03-2007, 10:16 AM
Beno was my hope. I know I sound like a homer. But the dude would have complemented JT pretty well.

avoidingtheclowns
12-03-2007, 10:25 AM
just wanted to clarify travis diener's contract. he's not that cheap - he's guaranteed almost $5m over the next 3 years. that's first round pick money - about what danny and shawne are pulling in and roughly 2x the min.

so diener was our first round pick this year -- and he had actually logged NBA minutes before... albeit not many. thats why i'm not torn up about the situation. the guy was basically a rookie given the limited opportunities he had stuck behind nelson and arroyo in orlando.


generally, you sign scrubs to min. 1 year deals only. why not? every year there are plenty of scrubs who are happy to take minimum deals. if they show anything then you can sign them to a longer deal next time.

yup we did this too with owens, graham and rush. we took a gamble on diener. like i said before he is essentially a draft pick.


if you sign a guy for 3 years though, you're expecting him to be in the rotation - else why would he need to stick around that long?

we obviously did expect him to be part of the rotation. so far he hasn't delivered. i'm not ready to give up on him yet -- like unclebuck mentioned it'd be interesting to see what diener would do when forced to play 25-30 minutes a game. maybe, like hicks has suggested, he rises to the occassion and produces beno-like numbers. unfortunately i don't see how we do that without risking losses and we're not a rebuilding project...


so diener to me has been a huge disappointment so far. can't help wondering whether keith mcleod would have been a better choice.
would he have signed for that 3 year $5m contract that diener got?

right now in theory yes. but you can hardly blame bird... as i mentioned above:

DIENER: 3pt shooter (at least in theory)
MCLEOD: not a 3pt shooter

what were we missing last season? shooting.


Okay, suppose that happens.

Who can play point for us besides Deiner and Owens?

Shawne? Granger? I can't see it.

Maybe Dunleavey could do a point forward thing.

that would be really the only option, outside of diener and owens.

and it might not be a terrible thing to have dunleavy do some of that before there is an injury. mainly because he is the "let the game come to me" -- maybe running the offense would force him to get more involved and more aggressive.

Anthem
12-03-2007, 10:30 AM
However, I don't care about any history of this guy at all when I say this, but even the healthiest of pg's get injured and very very few can go for this many min. for the length of a season.
Agree completely.

Nice to be agreeing with you again, Peck. :buddies:

Phildog
12-03-2007, 10:46 AM
I don't see how putting your two best players out there at point equals having a difficult point guard situation. We essentially have 4 PG's at this point. You want more of them?

Diener will be fine as a filler. If something happens as far as injury, we can deal with it then. I can't agree with making a move or trade for something that may never happen.

naptownmenace
12-03-2007, 10:59 AM
John Lucas III is currently a free agent and looking for a job. He's about the same size as Diener but he's a good shooter and has played well when given minutes with Houston. He got squeezed out after they got Mike James and Francis in the off season.

I'd love to get Luther Head. He's not much of a PG but he is a good shooter and scrappy defender. He'd be perfect for this offense. The Rockets will want Ike Diogu though because it was rumored that they and the Pacers had a deal in place before the draft to swap Ike for Head and the 26th pick if Morris Almond was still available. Almond was selected by Utah before that pick and killed the deal.

Anthem
12-03-2007, 11:08 AM
We essentially have 4 PG's at this point. You want more of them?
Nope. I'd be happy to trade Diener and Owens for somebody who could get on the floor.

And Quis isn't a point guard.

JayRedd
12-03-2007, 12:03 PM
just wanted to clarify travis diener's contract. he's not that cheap - he's guaranteed almost $5m over the next 3 years. that's first round pick money - about what danny and shawne are pulling in and roughly 2x the min.

That's still extremely cheap.

Not even the Knicks could screw up a salary cap bad enough that $1.5 million could ever matter.

TheDon
12-03-2007, 12:26 PM
I would think it should be easy to pull Ridnour away from the Sonics with him and watson always kind of miffed about playing time and who the starter is. We'd help them solve that situation and I bet Ridnour would be happy to at least to be getting 10-15 minutes a game at least.

Mr.ThunderMakeR
12-03-2007, 12:36 PM
Owens and Diener are srubs. Scrubs always look good during the summer league. What exactly are you guys surprised about?

About Tinsley: I'm glad hes finally playing good but Im still not convinced. Heck, two weeks ago everyone was calling for his head. Im just saying that Tinsley has his ups and downs.

Dr. Goldfoot
12-03-2007, 12:54 PM
John Lucas is not a shooter. Sub 40% FG and 25% 3pt. He hasn't played hardly at all with only 490 minutes played. He's only played 20 minutes or more 3 times and he did not deliver.

This team needs a real backup point guard not another player on par with Owens and Diener.

OakMoses
12-03-2007, 01:11 PM
tradewise...i would see what kind of trade we could make with houston, portland or seattle. all three have logjams at PG (james/alston/francis/head/brooks, west/watson/ridenour and blake/jack/rodriguez/green). portland seems more likely.


I like Travis Diener, and I think he's better than we've seen so far, but the thought of him starting for us does scare me. These three teams are great partners for a trade. Personally I like the idea of trading for a combo-type guard who could play both the one and the two. With either 'Quis or Dunleavy on the floor, we don't need a "true" PG, necessarily.

We also need a moderately proven player. My top three guys would be Jarrett Jack, Luther Head, and Delonte West. All three of these guys can play both guard slots, play pretty tough defense, are good shooters, and are probably not happy with their current level of playing time. The real question is, what do we have to give these teams? None of these guys are good enough to give away Ike or Shawne for, nor are they good enough to give up a #1 pick for. What do we have left that these teams may want?

Unclebuck
12-03-2007, 01:24 PM
Someone at the forum party mentioned Earl Boykins. He would keep the tempo moving at least and he can shoot

CableKC
12-03-2007, 01:32 PM
tradewise...i would see what kind of trade we could make with houston, portland or seattle. all three have logjams at PG (james/alston/francis/head/brooks, west/watson/ridenour and blake/jack/rodriguez/green). portland seems more likely.
The problem is that Portland and Seattle are rebuilding teams and we have nothing ( no expiring contracts and players that we could part with ) that they would want that they would be interested in.

At most....players like Foster or Marquis...could be swapped for a longer term contract like Watson or Ridnour....but ( obviously ) we would be reluctant to give them up cuz of how well they fit into our offense.

Short of signing McLeod or some other PG that is still available in the FA market....we're not going to have much choice unless someone is interested in taking Murphy off of our hands.

Dr. Goldfoot
12-03-2007, 01:33 PM
Someone at the forum party mentioned Earl Boykins. He would keep the tempo moving at least and he can shoot

Unlike Lucas or Diener or Me, Boykins actually has some experience in the NBA. It's safe to assume he could produce at past levels. But since when does a career .417 shooter get the comment "He can shoot"? I will give you his 35% 3pt mark. His height is an immediate red flag which of course overrides his quickness and steals ability by letting every single player in the NBA to have a post up advantage against him.

JayRedd
12-03-2007, 01:42 PM
Boykins is probably the best option, and I'm sure he'd be productive for us...But I hate the way he plays basketball and watching him play "point guard" pains me.

Regardless, it's probably moot since there's no way the Simons are going over the luxury tax just to sign him -- especially for the money he's asking.

Maybe Boykins, Varajao and Spree can just form their own team. The Oklahoma City Starving Kids maybe.

CableKC
12-03-2007, 02:02 PM
Going through the thread....it sounds like we have 4 options if we want to figure out some way to reduce Tinsley's minutes:

1 ) Trade for a PG that is better options then Deiner, Owens or ( considered to be "on par" with ) Marquis. The problem is that we don't have any players that another team would want that we would want to part with.

2 ) Sign some FA PG out there that is better then Deiner or Owens. Whose avaialble that we can reasonably get that would not push us over the Luxury Tax? Unfortunately, the answer is that we may not have too many options.

3 ) Sacrifice backup PG minutes to have Deiner and Owens fight it out to see which would be the best to backup Tinsley and Marquis as a 3rd option backup PG.

4 ) Go Big and have Dunleavy run "limited" Point-forward minutes as the 3rd option PG behind Tinsley and Marquis. This may even allow us to go with an "All-Forward" if Marquis is out.

As UB suggested, there maybe a need to to see what Deiner or Owens can do for extended minutes before JO'B is forced to give them minutes when Tinsley or Marquis goes down for an extended period.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind trying out Dunleavy at the Point-Forward spot for 5-10 minutes a game to see how he does. I know that it's not a long-term solution for as Tinsley's backup ....but it maybe an acceptable 3rd option PG option if Deiner or Owens doesn't work out. I know that it sounds strange to give Dunleavy minutes at the point....but the key to remember is that he would only have to do so for 5+ minutes to keep the offense flowing and Tinsley resting on the bench.

If our acquiring a backup PG option is limited and we cannot sign anyone....then the 3rd option PG ( whether it is Deiner, Owens or Dunleavy ) just has to hold down the fort until Tinsley can return.

Ragnar
12-03-2007, 02:07 PM
I was not a huge fan but Armstrong would actually do well in this system. Remember when he was in Orlando and had his best years it was in a similar system.

avoidingtheclowns
12-03-2007, 02:55 PM
The problem is that Portland and Seattle are rebuilding teams and we have nothing ( no expiring contracts and players that we could part with ) that they would want that they would be interested in.

At most....players like Foster or Marquis...could be swapped for a longer term contract like Watson or Ridnour....but ( obviously ) we would be reluctant to give them up cuz of how well they fit into our offense.

Short of signing McLeod or some other PG that is still available in the FA market....we're not going to have much choice unless someone is interested in taking Murphy off of our hands.

this is true. why seattle doesn't make a ton of sense unless we just swap PGs. portland on the other hand has darius miles and maybe raef lafrenz they might be interested in moving. in which case they could be willing to add a vet like murphy. that was at least my thinking.

d_c
12-03-2007, 03:13 PM
this is true. why seattle doesn't make a ton of sense unless we just swap PGs. portland on the other hand has darius miles and maybe raef lafrenz they might be interested in moving. in which case they could be willing to add a vet like murphy. that was at least my thinking.

Darius Miles has one year less on his contract than Murphy at about $9M a year remaining, but he's basically deadweight and doesn't play.

They could theoretically want to use one of their young PGs to dump him, but I dunno if they really want Murphy, a guy who has a longer deal than Miles. Murphy makes big money and plays the same position as Aldridge, a guy they're pretty much set with for the next 10 years.

grace
12-03-2007, 03:55 PM
I can't begin to make myself read the whole thread so if this has already been brought up I guess I'll just reiterate it. You could have had Jannero Pargo. You snooze you lose.

McKeyFan
12-03-2007, 04:10 PM
I don't know much about Head, but I would be willing to bleed a little to get West or Jack.

I'd trade Harrison for either of them. I'd trade a #1 draft pick for either of them. They don't want Murphy so there's no point discussing it. I wouldn't give up Danny or Shawn for them, but I would consider Quis, because of his injuries, if they gave us a pick or another player.

Trader Joe
12-03-2007, 04:12 PM
I would NOT trade a number 1 pick for West under ANY circumstances. Probably not Jack either.

McKeyFan
12-03-2007, 04:17 PM
This would also be a good time to trade Tinsley.

:D

Anthem
12-03-2007, 04:19 PM
I wouldn't give up Danny or Shawn for them
What about Danny or Shawne for Jack+Rudy? Or Jack+Rudy+Pick?

d_c
12-03-2007, 04:21 PM
I don't know much about Head, but I would be willing to bleed a little to get West or Jack.

I'd trade Harrison for either of them. I'd trade a #1 draft pick for either of them. They don't want Murphy so there's no point discussing it. I wouldn't give up Danny or Shawn for them, but I would consider Quis, because of his injuries, if they gave us a pick or another player.

I saw West play last night against the Warriors and the guy is a trainwreck as a standalone PG. He can shoot it, but don't count on him to run your team. That being said, Seattle has zero use for Harrison because they already have 3 project centers on the roster (Sene, Petro, Swift). Harrison does them no good.

Jarrett Jack is a solid backup at worst in this league, but he's nothing special. He's obviously not worth giving Granger or Williams, but the Blazers don't really need Daniels.

d_c
12-03-2007, 04:23 PM
What about Danny or Shawne for Jack+Rudy? Or Jack+Rudy+Pick?

That's not worth doing on the Pacers part. If I'm the Pacers, I'd offer up Ike and see kind of PG I could get for him.

OakMoses
12-03-2007, 04:31 PM
I saw West play last night against the Warriors and the guy is a trainwreck as a standalone PG. He can shoot it, but don't count on him to run your team. That being said, Seattle has zero use for Harrison because they already have 3 project centers on the roster (Sene, Petro, Swift). Harrison does them no good.

Jarrett Jack is a solid backup at worst in this league, but he's nothing special. He's obviously not worth giving Granger or Williams, but the Blazers don't really need Daniels.

West is not good enough to be a starting PG, but I'd feel very comfortable with him as a backup at the 1 and 2 slots. He's much better than Diener and Rush, and probably is on par with 'Quis as a PG.

Jack is a step up from West. He is good enough to be a starting PG, but will never be a great one. West is more of a combo guard than Jack and a better shooter, but Jack's ball-handling ability and his defense are better than West's. Having Jack would put us in a very Toronto-esque situation. We could play Tins about 30 mpg and let Jack play the other 18. We could also give him minutes at the two if 'Quis was having a bad knee night.

I would trade Harrison for either guy, but I'm sure Seattle doesn't want him. I don't think Portland would trade Jack for Harrison.

Anthem
12-03-2007, 04:36 PM
That's not worth doing on the Pacers part.
Really? Portland's #1 pick should be pretty good this year (Top 5). Plus Rudy should be a prize, especially to a team that lacks a shooting guard and needs good outside shooters.

Tom White
12-03-2007, 04:50 PM
I wonder if Jalen still wants to be a point guard?

:D

McKeyFan
12-03-2007, 05:08 PM
What about Danny or Shawne for Jack+Rudy? Or Jack+Rudy+Pick?

I don't know anything about Rudy. Did he play against us the other night?

Anthem
12-03-2007, 05:20 PM
I don't know anything about Rudy. Did he play against us the other night?
They drafted him but haven't signed him, so he's in Europe for another year finishing up his contract.

http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/rudyfernandez.asp

EDIT: I honestly don't think they'd value Shawne high enough to get all three, but it's still interesting to think about. Surely there is some price at which you'd say "Yeah, I'd trade Shawne or Danny for THAT."

AesopRockOn
12-03-2007, 05:26 PM
What about Danny or Shawne for Jack+Rudy? Or Jack+Rudy+Pick?

Figured Portland had all they needed at SF with Roy. Shawne for Jack, Rudy, and their #1 would be potentially great for us though.

d_c
12-03-2007, 05:33 PM
Really? Portland's #1 pick should be pretty good this year (Top 5). Plus Rudy should be a prize, especially to a team that lacks a shooting guard and needs good outside shooters.

My bad, I missed the #1 pick thrown in by Portland in that deal. I think Portland probably backs out on that, because they don't know what kind of pick they'd be giving up on unless it's protected.

The reality is, the Blazers really don't need to make major moves of any kind involving their best assets. All they really need to do is rehab Oden, hold on to what they have and develop it. They'll be a force within a couple of years.

Anthem
12-03-2007, 05:41 PM
Figured Portland had all they needed at SF with Roy.
Roy is a SG.

Putnam
12-03-2007, 07:26 PM
55 posts on this thread.

And no one has said we'd be happy if we had kept Anthony Johnson in the summer of 06.

I'm just sayin'.

Anthem
12-03-2007, 08:02 PM
55 posts on this thread.

And no one has said we'd be happy if we had kept Anthony Johnson in the summer of 06.

I'm just sayin'.
The thought had honestly never occurred to me.

And it took me all of three seconds to dismiss.

Sorry AJ!

Ragnar
12-03-2007, 08:05 PM
55 posts on this thread.

And no one has said we'd be happy if we had kept Anthony Johnson in the summer of 06.

I'm just sayin'.

You just gave me the shivers.:shudder::shudder:

McKeyFan
12-03-2007, 09:57 PM
55 posts on this thread.

And no one has said we'd be happy if we had kept Anthony Johnson in the summer of 06.

I'm just sayin'.

I thought about it.

AJ drove me crazy under Rick. But I think he'd be fine under JOB.

Too bad.

P. S. He's probably available for cheap, don't you think?

Mr.ThunderMakeR
12-03-2007, 10:26 PM
Wow could you imagine the fit Tinsley would throw if we brought back AJ? Can poutisitis be fatal?

wintermute
12-03-2007, 10:30 PM
That's still extremely cheap.

Not even the Knicks could screw up a salary cap bad enough that $1.5 million could ever matter.

phoenix suns don't agree. they've sold their 1st rounder the past few years rather than pay the rookie scale salary, cheap as it is. pacers aren't far from the luxury tax threshold either, so they might be closer to making this kind of hard decision than you'd think.

bottomline is, diener isn't a low-cost low-risk investment in the way that rush, owens, and graham are. for those 3 guys, if they don't pan out, then ok you just move on. with diener, you're still stuck with him 3 years. you can only hope he turns his game around.



I was not a huge fan but Armstrong would actually do well in this system. Remember when he was in Orlando and had his best years it was in a similar system.

armstrong is with the nets now.

BlueNGold
12-03-2007, 10:51 PM
Our backups are worse than ever, but I'm still pleased with the PG situation this year.

What? 8.5 assists per game? Clutch performances? I will take that from the starter and roll the dice that he stays healthy. He played 72 games last year and hasn't missed a single one this year. He's also smiled more in the last month than he has the last 4 years.

I held an Executive VP position in the Tinsley-Hater club over the last several years...and I have since resigned. No, he's not who I would pick at PG, but until major changes are made, I am ready to stop the hate. ;<)

Evan_The_Dude
12-03-2007, 11:16 PM
Maybe Dunleavey could do a point forward thing.

:ding:

JayRedd
12-04-2007, 12:14 PM
phoenix suns don't agree. they've sold their 1st rounder the past few years rather than pay the rookie scale salary, cheap as it is. pacers aren't far from the luxury tax threshold either, so they might be closer to making this kind of hard decision than you'd think.

bottomline is, diener isn't a low-cost low-risk investment in the way that rush, owens, and graham are. for those 3 guys, if they don't pan out, then ok you just move on. with diener, you're still stuck with him 3 years. you can only hope he turns his game around.

Well, the Suns are ridiculous, so that's not really a great example, IMO.

There are very few other owners so cheap that would ever make the luxury tax limit such a concrete ceiling under that team's current circumstances. Those guys are literally putting a potential title at risk because of like $5 million. That's insane.

The Simons have already shown willingness to pay it in the past if it meant contending. So I stand by the fact that a $1.5 million contract would never make or break us or limit our ability to make transactions. And Diener would be easy to include in a package deal so we're certainly not "stuck with him 3 years" only hoping "he turns his game around."

The third year is a non-issue, IMO, and was actually a savvy move by Bird/Walsh in the sense that if Travis proves to be worth a damn, we have an extremely cheap rotation player for three seasons. Looks like it might not work out, but I still think it was a fine risk to take given the extremely low downside.

avoidingtheclowns
12-04-2007, 12:38 PM
Well, the Suns are ridiculous, so that's not really a great example, IMO.

There are very few other owners so cheap that would ever make the luxury tax limit such a concrete ceiling under that team's current circumstances. Those guys are literally putting a potential title at risk because of like $5 million. That's insane.

totally agree


The third year is a non-issue, IMO, and was actually a savvy move by Bird/Walsh in the sense that if Travis proves to be worth a damn, we have an extremely cheap rotation player for three seasons. Looks like it might not work out, but I still think it was a fine risk to take given the extremely low downside.

i wouldn't say savvy. it would have been savvy to make it a team option, not a player option. but it certainly isn't terrible.

wintermute
12-04-2007, 06:48 PM
Well, the Suns are ridiculous, so that's not really a great example, IMO.

There are very few other owners so cheap that would ever make the luxury tax limit such a concrete ceiling under that team's current circumstances. Those guys are literally putting a potential title at risk because of like $5 million. That's insane.



well, how about the spurs? they gave away scola and udrih this summer just to get under the tax limit (they're just $30k under the tax now after those transactions).

take a look around the league. the luxury tax *is* a hard limit for many owners. would the simons be different? we haven't hit that level yet, but i guess we'll find out pretty soon. maybe next summer when we try to re-sign david. or surely the summer after when extensions to danny and ike kick in. that's when the extra years in diener's contract could hurt.