PDA

View Full Version : Hollinger's Sleeper players - Shawne Williams



Naptown_Seth
01-30-2008, 01:03 PM
Shawne Williams (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=4145), Pacers
Indiana has a fairly grim future, with the exception of two young forwards named Danny Granger (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3943) and Shawne Williams. Granger is a known commodity, but Williams gets little ink. The 6-9 forward should be a junior at Memphis, but opted to enter the league early and spent much of last season on the bench.

He's an intriguing prospect because he can shoot from deep (35.8 percent career) but also gets to the rim. Right now he looks great half the time and totally out to lunch the other half, but let's see what happens in the second half of the season as he gets more experience. Certainly his 18.3 points per 40 minutes warrants attention -- guys who can score at that rate at the age of 21 are pretty rare.
People rip Hollinger as just some stats guy, but I've always defended him as a close observer who supplements his opinions with numbers. His read on Shawne is dead-on. I think many of us feel that Shawne is immensely talented, but only someone who took the time to watch this generally uninteresting team (to outsiders) would have noticed him due to his playing time.

Last night's game vs Detroit was a prime example, which Shawne hitting a silky jumper, flying to the lane like a true vet, and then having a series of pretty horrible miscues and TOs. Like Danny you just want to get him on the court and get deeper into the learning curve with him. Hard to do when he normally doesn't play despite the team heading straight south at this point.


Full article
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Sleepers-080129&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab5pos1&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dholling er_john%26page%3dSleepers-080129%26lpos%3dspotlight%26lid%3dtab5pos1

JayRedd
01-30-2008, 01:04 PM
Yeah...This was a really insightful article.

I like Dorrell, Thaddeus and Francisco in particular. And Louis Williams is gonna be nice.

Rajah Brown
01-30-2008, 01:28 PM
Hollinger is spot on. As I've said repeatedly, SW has a higher
ceiling than DG does. If we make a deal at some point that
includes one of them and it's SW that goes, I'll be mighty
disappointed.

jeffg-body
01-30-2008, 01:38 PM
I have to admit if it came down to Williams or Granger in a major trade I'd hope they keep Williams, even though I like Danny a ton.

count55
01-30-2008, 03:02 PM
I've never understood why we need to choose between the two, at least over the next three to five years. I don't think it would be a JO-Al situation where they'd get in each other's way. I think they'll both be good solid players in the league, and we're a team that's going to need a lot of good solid players.

Williams is only in his second year, and he's already played more minutes this season than he did all of last year. The consistency in playing time will come as he reduces his lunch breaks. I'd expect him to be solidly in the rotation by the end of this season or the start of the next.

Rajah Brown
01-30-2008, 03:27 PM
Count55-

Agreed. Keeping both guys would be ideal. It just seems likely that
at some point, either to move a burdensome contract (Murphy,
maybe J.O. or even Tinsley) and get something worth having
in exchange or for instance, to move up a few slots in the
Lottery as part of a bigger deal, one of those guys will
probably have to be included to spice it up.

OakMoses
01-30-2008, 04:36 PM
Count55-

Agreed. Keeping both guys would be ideal. It just seems likely that
at some point, either to move a burdensome contract (Murphy,
maybe J.O. or even Tinsley) and get something worth having
in exchange or for instance, to move up a few slots in the
Lottery as part of a bigger deal, one of those guys will
probably have to be included to spice it up.

I think that Danny has moved beyond the point of being someone who may be added to "spice up" a deal. Granger is already performing at a high level. He is a high character guy who has no huge holes in his game (a la Dunleavy's defense). He's also still improving. Danny is an asset we should give away only if we are getting some major talent in return. He's not a guy that we should add into a deal just to get rid of somebody else or make a lateral move.

I agree with Hollinger's assessment of Shawne and last night was a key example of his up and downside at this point. I don't know if JO'B will ever switch into "future mode" but if he does, I'd start by playing Shawne and Danny at the 3 and 4 for extended minutes. We need to figure out if that's a viable combo for the future.

Rajah Brown
01-30-2008, 07:30 PM
Ya, 'spice up' was a hurried choice of words. Certainly didn't mean
to imply he's a throw in guy. He's probably our most attractive
asset from a talent/production/contract standpoint. Williams is
probably second.

imawhat
01-30-2008, 10:50 PM
Shawne is doing things now I NEVER expected him to do. He is now 'thinking' rather than being 100% instinctive.

It's all happened since his cut in playing time. O'Brien said it was difficult on Shawne and hard to explain since he was "doing nothing wrong", but now we can see the effects of confidence (or lack of).

Infinite MAN_force
01-30-2008, 11:23 PM
I think you have to trade one of them. We have other positions that need upgrading and Shawne's upside is one major reason why I think we should try to use Danny to grab us a point guard. Danny has been a little up and down but for the most part I think we have seen the player he is going to be, now is the time to get maximum value while he is on his rookie contract.

Alpolloloco
01-31-2008, 03:23 AM
Groom Shawne for the remaining year and then trade him in the off season. We NEED to keep Danny!

Mourning
01-31-2008, 05:29 AM
Both players still can grow quite some (Shawne in particular). I would oppose dealing any of these two in the short term, maybe in the longterm to get equal value at another position, high pick or young and very talented player.

IF I would consider trading Grange I would waite one more year and deal him near next years trade deadline at the earliest. With Shawne I would waite at the very least until the summer of 2009 before trading him. They both will get enough playing time at the remaining part of this season and even more (or atleast that's what logic would suggest) next season, so they can both grow and build up their respective values.

I would consider dealing Foster or Quis before this seasons trading deadline and IF possible JO and Tinsley aswell, though both are probably harder to deal. I would let David's rookie contract expire or IF you can get a 2050 second rounder I would do it, no questions asked. Everything you get for him is a bonus.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Naptown_Seth
01-31-2008, 02:11 PM
I used to be more in favor of moving Danny to help break up some contract situations in a deal, but I'm getting out of that mindset now. It feels like the team is a bit more stuck than that and that it will take more than just a couple of deals to solve things.

Maybe Danny/Shawne are Reggie/Rik in the early years. Now those teams had better pieces to move, but at the same time who saw a Herb/Detlef trade coming like it did? And after trading for Pooh the roster got a bit more locked up.

The point is they didn't move Reggie or Rik, they made a couple of nice draft picks in Dale and Tony and then adjusted the roster with a bit of sacrifice (picks in that case). Reggie and Rik didn't get to win big right away however.

So perhaps you just let 33 and 4 develop and work on the rest of the mess for 3 years from now. Talent in the NBA is like your spending cash. I don't know that it would be smart to try and "buy" their way out of the hole right now.

CableKC
01-31-2008, 02:22 PM
I think you have to trade one of them. We have other positions that need upgrading and Shawne's upside is one major reason why I think we should try to use Danny to grab us a point guard. Danny has been a little up and down but for the most part I think we have seen the player he is going to be, now is the time to get maximum value while he is on his rookie contract.
I hate to say it....but I agree with you ASSUMING that trading Granger would return a player that we actually need and TPTB decide to hang their coat on JONea'ls back for another season :banghead:

It's one of those trade offs....we may lose Granger.....but get back a player that can actually help us out at another position....then I would begrudgingly accept it only because we already have Dunleavy and Shawne to fill in for him at the SF spot.

I'm not suggesting that we trade Granger just for anyone ( like another SF ).....but if we had the opportunity to get a top tier PG or Starting quality Big Man that could do what I wish JONeal could do....then I probably do it.

No one is untouchable as far as I am concerned.....it's just that some players have a bigger price tag on their forehead then others.

Will Galen
01-31-2008, 07:27 PM
Maybe Danny/Shawne are Reggie/Rik in the early years. Now those teams had better pieces to move, but at the same time who saw a Herb/Detlef trade coming like it did? And after trading for Pooh the roster got a bit more locked up.

The point is they didn't move Reggie or Rik, they made a couple of nice draft picks in Dale and Tony and then adjusted the roster with a bit of sacrifice (picks in that case). Reggie and Rik didn't get to win big right away however.

So perhaps you just let 33 and 4 develop and work on the rest of the mess for 3 years from now. Talent in the NBA is like your spending cash. I don't know that it would be smart to try and "buy" their way out of the hole right now.

I agree with this. There was some talk when Williams was drafted that he would grow into a power forward. Right now he's 22, soon to be 23 years old. He's 6'9 and the Pacers still have him listed at his rookie weight of 225 pounds. He'll naturally put on more weight as he gets older. For reference Chris Bosh is listed at 230 pounds.

Tom White
01-31-2008, 08:04 PM
I'm not suggesting that we trade Granger just for anyone ( like another SF ).....but if we had the opportunity to get a top tier PG or Starting quality Big Man that could do what I wish JONeal could do....then I probably do it.


That is one of the problems.

Can you name a team that would actually give up a "starting quality" big man or a "top tier" point guard for Danny Granger?

I can't name one.

I think it is another sign of the mediocrity of the talent on the Pacers that we look at Granger as being that important to the future of the team.

That isn't meant as a knock on Granger, and I know he is currently an important piece to this team, as it is constructed, but how many teams would consider him to be one of their top two or three players, if he were on their team?

Probably only the bottom feeders, and how many of them have an expendable "starting quality" big man, or a "top tier" point guard that they would give the Pacers for Granger?

On another point, when we discuss Williams or Diogu or whomever, doesn't it feel a little deja vu to be using the P word (potential) so much? Reminds me of when Bender was here.

Of course now-a-days we avoid the P word by substituting the word "ceiling".

Ah well, just my take on it.

Infinite MAN_force
01-31-2008, 08:23 PM
I don't think a 3rd year guy who averages 18 points, 6 rebounds, and 2 assists a game who is also a strong defender is a guy people would not like to aquire. He wont net you a top 5 point guard or anything, but he is not a top 5 player. I think You can get a point guard at equal value talentwise and that upgrades a position that needs upgrading.

Its all about finding the right fit, are there any teams out there with a young talented PG who might be looking to upgrade their SF spot?

Kofi
02-01-2008, 12:00 AM
Right now he's 22, soon to be 23 years old.

Actually, he's 21, soon to be 22 (Feb. 16th).