User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 3.0054 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Nash was a mistake, and that should have been apparent in watching that club. Nash was the straw that stirred the drink in Dallas. He made the offense go. The Mavs made two mistakes. The first is they desired to run the offense through Dirk. I think this was less Nellie and more Cuban. Dallas played better when the PGs set up Dirk. The second and bigger mistake was the lack of understanding of pace. While the Mavs were not a good defensive team at the time, they thought they were worse defensively because the pace that Nash gives to you.
Simmons is wrong about Nash being a product of D'Antoni. Nash was pretty damn special in Dallas too. Its just that he hit a perfect storm in PHO. (His best year was the year after he won the 2nd MVP.)
RE: Blair/Barkley
Sorry for the delay, but no I don't think Blair has the explosion of Barkley. But he probably has more explosion than Jerome Lane. He's also got an NBA ass, so I think he'll find work.
RE: Gortat
The Rockets were probably hurt a bit by the Magic's deep run. If not, Gortat would be one of those Euro steals. IMHO, the best move the Hawks made in recent years was getting Pachulia. Gortat might have been in a similar spot if he didn't get as much tv time.
RE: Q
He's quickly turning into the Raef LaFrentz and Theo Ratliff of the NBA. A guy that is traded for the sole purpose of matching contracts. There was a time he was a promising looking guard.
Maybe Dunleavy can get Hamilton for Kaman or Camby. (Another cap-related edit: if Dumars turns Hamilton into Camby, does he fix his 2010 cap situation again, while also getting younger? Maybe that helps offset the Gordon signing, though I'm not enough of a capologist to know.)
It is an overpay, but I think Joe D has a huge, complex plan in his head for the next Pistons team and Gordon is obviously a big part of that. I think Dumars wants to move Prince and Hamilton, traded Billups looking ahead and seeing the 2004 team as finally done, and will make a run at Ariza and whoever else. Also, FWIW, Gordon has always reminded me of The Microwave and maybe Dumars thinks that as well.
So, I can't endorse 5/55 for Gordon for a 39-43 team by itself, but I am going to wait and see what else Dumars does first. The Darko Fiasco was a huge error--but Dumars is still a smart GM.
I am not Villanueva fan, though.
With what, the 3 million they have left to spend? (Edit: perhaps a sign-and-trade? Will Ariza be a base-year-compensation player?)
I agree that Dumars might not be done -- as noted above, I'm curious what their 2010 cap space is if he turns Hamilton into Camby, for example -- but I'm pretty sure what big moves are left in the near-term will be trades, not FA signings (not enough cap room left -- for now).
- The Lakers are being forced to pick between Odom and Ariza. They should pick Ariza.
- I like the Villanueva signing by Detroit. Gordon, not so much.
- The Cavs are going hard after Ron Artest. Apparently, LBJ had a face-to-face with him to make the point that he'll be really, really wanted.
They wouldn't be happy because it would be obvious he was ripping off Simmons. (Seriously, there's nothing in that paragraph that Simmons didn't write, repeatedly).
LINK
WRT the Pistons: I see the point PJ made. Maybe all this is being done with an eye on '10.
More importantly, I don't get the Gordon move at all. It's just too much money for such a limited skill set and I don't see who else was going to jump in the bidding. I've suggested comparisons to last years MLB free agency period and I think there may be a lot of similarity. Particularly with respect to patient teams getting great deals on guys who run out of leverage.
Ariza looks to be leaving for more than the midlevel, or to Cleveland. Probably going to end up in Portland? Since they can offer more than the midlevel.
In spite of your dislike for Cuban, you do realize the Mavs got better after Nash left and were one Bennett Salvatore or so from a title? That's not to say that it wasn't a mistake, but it wasn't a MISTAKE, and for several years it kinda worked out (and could have worked better had they spent the Dampier money elsewhere).
I heard John Thompson talking about Rip the other day; I guess Rip is on the outs in Detroit anyway, having been very critical of the departed Michael Curry. Despite Curry's firing, I imagine Dumars is not going to allow a player of Rip's ability regard himself as the man in Detroit. I suspect he goes. Thompson hammered Hamilton a bit, which is not surprising considering his boy, AI, is in Detroit.
There's no secret they want to trade him, but they've given away any leverage they had by signing Gordon. Bulls did the same exact thing a couple years back when the signed Ben Wallace and drafted Tyrus Thomas before they traded Tyson Chandler. BG is better than Hamilton going forward, and Hamilton does have some use on the right team, but I'd still be weary of acquiring him (am I crazy or would he be a nice fit at the 2 for the Cavs?).
So, I can't endorse 5/55 for Gordon for a 39-43 team by itself, but I am going to wait and see what else Dumars does first. The Darko Fiasco was a huge error--but Dumars is still a smart GM.
How long do we give Dumars the benefit of the doubt? Right now it looks like he traded Billups for cap space that he's turned into Gordon and Villenuava (combined they're making $19mil/yr). I'm doubtful he's going to turn Rip into anything that useful, he's still stuck with Stuckey at PG and needs another starter in the frontcourt (I'm assuming Maxiell moves to a starting role now). All of the draft picks are projects, and he'd have to hit home runs on all 3 for me to picture a good team (but still not a contending team). He's got no cap space next year, and he's also considering trading the best remaining player (Prince). I can use my imagination, but I just don't see it. That, plus the Darko ######, is more than enough reason to question Dumars.
I agree with this. It's not say that Dumars is a bad GM, but is there a point at which we question that he's a great GM? Put differently, perhaps Larry Brown deserves a lot more credit for Detroit's success than we seem to be giving him, and Dumars a lot less than he's been given?
No, but it's Chris Wallace, what do you expect? The guy is absolutely terrible at his job. Zach has now been traded from his past three teams for nothing, they all just wanted him gone. What a guy. That the Clippers got a shorter contract and a halfway useful player is amazing.
I guess Rip is on the outs in Detroit anyway, having been very critical of the departed Michael Curry
Really? Because the way I see it, they're going out of their way to make Rip happy. Kick Iverson off the team, fire the coach he doesn't like, they're doing everything that Rip wants. For someone they don't want, they're sure making him happy.
How long do we give Dumars the benefit of the doubt?
I think it's time to stop. The Darko pick was disastrously bad (since the Nugs this year could've been the Pistons this year), the extension he gave to Rip looks horrible, he's overpaid Gordon and Charlie V, and he traded one of his two best players for a guy he cut. His coaching hires since Larry just haven't worked, and the best one (Flip), he ran out of town and probably wishes he could get back.
Otherwise, the Pistons are going to have a very well-paid sixth man.
Good luck with that. The Bulls have been trying to make him a sixth man for two years, and all he does is #####. Now they have two shooting guards, and neither one's ego will allow them to be a sixth man. Have fun.
As I understand it, no one expects him to play before the All-Star break. I love the guy, but it's hard to give him a roster spot in that situation, especially given his history of knee troubles. I'll be rooting for him.
A smart team would give him a one year deal with decent pay. Maybe even a player option.
So how exactly is signing Gordon to this deal supposed to make Rip happy?
I know, but that's the point that JT was making: it looks like they're serving Hamilton's needs/whines, but (1) he "hears" that Dumars is unhappy with him, and (2) and Thompson explicitly said this, Dumars has got to know Hamilton is not good enough to be a coach-killer.
JT's information may be wrong, and maybe Dumars doesn't know as much as some people think. I don't think Joe D is that bad, however. I've always kinda liked Hamilton, but he is clearly not a guy you allow to control your team. There just aren't that many (Dwight, Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Duncan, Dirk jump immediately to mind), but that's an utterly different class of player.
I can't figure that one out. I guess they're telling Rip that Gordon will take to the bench. I don't see it, but I'm not the GM. I think Dumars is spending money just because he has it, and he's going to regret it big time in about two seasons.
In Joe's (we stick together) defense - the Pistons won 32 games the year Dumars took over as GM. After that, they won 50, 50, 54, 54, 64, 53, and 59 games before finally regressing this past year. In each of the last six of those seasons, they made the conference finals, winning the East twice and the whole thing once.
Yes, Larry Brown coached both of the finals teams, but it was Dumars' pick up of Rasheed during the 03-04 season that was the true difference maker for me.
I know it's easy to point to the obvious misses (Darko, the Hamilton extension among them), and Larry Brown (never made the finals without him) - and these are all valid datapoints. However, that's a fantastic run of success - only the Spurs and Mavs have won as many games over that period - and while this past season was tough, and his moves this offseason don't seem to be exactly dazzling, I do think Dumars deserves a pretty lengthy leash.
He's not some genius or savant, and I'm not saying he shouldn't be criticized for his missteps, but there are probably 25 or so other teams that would love to have him as GM. Not everyone can be the Spurs.
Not saying I love it, but I do think that's the roster construction logic here. That or they plan on moving Prince and sliding Rip to SF, where he played a good amount this year.
Haven't read anything about Ariza to Portland up here. Still working Hedo, and they still want Hinrich.
I think Ariza to Cleveland is a great pickup for the Cavs, although Artest is better. And, I can't really fault Ariza, this may be his one big paycheck, he's gotta take it.
Villanueva might be a good signing,
I'm really down on Charlie V. He's had motivation problems since college. Plus, he put up his best numbers on a horrible team missing it's best players in a contract year. That's usually not a recipe for sustainable production.
If the Blazers sign a SF, whether it be Hedo or Ariza, trading Blake and Outlaw for Hinrich make a lot of sense for both teams. Blazers get their PG upgrade and get rid of SF minutes. They could potentially do without signing a SF, if Webster is healthy; between him, Batum, and Fernandez they could fill those minutes. For the Bulls, they get a backup PG and another body for SF. If they're as intent as trading Tyrus Thomas as I'm afraid they are, they can really mix and match their lineup. Perhaps Outlaw is another piece in an attempt to land Bosh. Worst case, both Blake and Outlaw expire after the season, and that would give the Bulls $34.5mil in expiring deals. They'd need to sign someone to backup the 2 (again, why didn't they draft a guard at all; someone like McClinton or Douglass even just cause they're cheap and shooters?).
I really like that trade and hope it happens. I like it more from the Bulls side, but it makes sense for the Blazers too.
This is one reason as a Lakers fan, that I'm not too worried. I'd rather not lose Ariza, but I think that the consolation is about 80% likely to be Artest which is great for the short term and we'll take the long term hit. Assuming that Phil can do his usual job with the league's top headcases, Artest could even be a slight upgrade with more consistent offense, better rebounding but with less man-to-man defense against the quicker wings.
I agree that people are being way to hard on Joe D. He'll never live down the Darko pick, but people take for granted his consistenct ability to put a top team in the East together, along with the championship. He wasn't blessed with a Tim Duncan falling in his lap, but other than that I don't see what distinguishes him from Buford/Pop in San Antonio. Also, I think that he makes a Rip trade that provides them with cap room for next year, so I'm a little more optimistic about his plans going forward.
Why is it more important for LA to keep Ariza? As well as he played in the playoffs, I'm not that crazy about him. IMO, it seems like Odom is more difficult to replace than Ariza: in every draft there seem to be multiple 6'7", 6'8" projectable guys like him.
Plus, Ariza is spectacularly athletic, still so very young with room for improvement. Odom's more versatile, but I'm working on the assumption that Bynum is going to be able to give the Lakers 30 minutes a game going forward, which means there's less of a need for size, and a greater need for long-range shooting and perimeter defense. Ultimately, I want the Lakers to keep both guys. Losing either one would hurt them more than a little.
[addendum: another interesting point of comparison is their quiet, humble demeanor. Both guys are guys you could say appear to coast at times, seem passive, but I'm not sure that's accurate in either case, and certainly with the right teammate and coach motivating them, they'll be assets on most teams.]
Isiah did have a feel for the "scrappier" types who make it on athleticism and effort (Ariza, Chandler, Lee, "Lex Luthor" Nate). I'm speculating but I think his experience with Rodman so early in his career showed what an effect those kind of guys can have on your team. The problem is that they are great guys for the rotation, but they get over-valued fairly quickly. People were talking about Lee for $50 million and now with Ariza at possibly $30 million, and then you begin to have guys who look limited based on the fact that they are now expected to do the things of elite players. If a team is expecting Ariza or Lee to be your 2nd best player on a consistent basis, your in real trouble.
No one expects that with Ariza - nor is that salary commensurate with that expectation. He's a very good role player, no shame in that.
Don't forget Balkman!
Can Wilson Chandler do anything besides hit long range twos?
And Ariza has more range and a higher rebounding percentage than Chandler. He showcased his defense in the playoffs, and has shown off some spectacular finishing moves. IOW, if Chandler ever pans out, he'll be Trevor Ariza. Ariza's got shortcomings — he's not a good ballhandler or passer — but anyone who questions his value should ask Carmelo Anthony about his defensive motor.
I love Rasheed and hope last year he was just bored, and not showing the first signs of age. I also hope the Celtics get him.
I hope not. But, I love the idea Rasheed coming off the bench. Who cares if he's old? The Celtics are highly unlikely to be contending in two years anyway. The future is now in Boston. Seems like the right situation to keep him interested too. He's an upgrade on Davis to be sure.
Relax, no one was questioning Ariza, and I think you're being unfairly Lakeristic in your analysis. Ariza's fine, and a nice piece of your puzzle, but lowering Chandler's ceiling to Ariza is not fair to either of them, yet.
Dumars: I agree with most of Joe C's take, but the short answer is, "I give him the benefit of the doubt until his team has more than one bad year." I say this in part due to my recent exp as a Laker fan. I was very hard on Kupchak for a long time and in many respects was deadass wrong about stuff. So I try to go way big picture in looking at GMs now.
This is not to say I agree with Joe D's every move--Kupchak did some weak stuff en route to the title, and winning does not erase every error. But I want to see the next Pistons squads over 2010 and 2011 before I say Dumars has lost it.
And since I don't think Ariza's hit his ceiling yet, I don't think I'm being unfair to Chandler in any way here.
Chandler definitely has a better shot - not a small thing. Otherwise, Ariza has sizable advantages in athleticism, driving to the basket, defense, rebounding, and playmaking (such as it is), both at present and at the same age.
I think Chandler should be happy to reach Ariza's level - and I like Chandler.
Sure you are. You: IOW, if Chandler ever pans out, he'll be Trevor Ariza.
In his 1st full season at age 21, Chandler averaged 14 points, 5.5 rebounds, and a block and shot slightly better from 3 than Ariza did. His upside isn't what Ariza just did. Ariza's upside might be what Chandler just did. And Chandler "showcased" his D all year. He's a fine player. They both are fine players with high ceilings (they may never reach, of course).
As far as #4035- I agreed with it completely until about two weeks ago (and I still see it as a sound argument.) I believe however, that Odom will be harder to replace and, irrespective of Bynum's development, Odom makes the Lakers a better team than Ariza does in the next year or two. At least right now I feel that way- tomorrow I'll probably change my mind again.
You haven't seen Chandler play, it seems. He's at least as good defensively and has incredible athleticism (I have no idea how one could distinguish between them). He's also much stronger. I conceded the ballhandling above.
I'm in agreement on this. While Ariza is a better long term fit, there are a more athletic wings who play D and can shoot a wide open 3 than there are point-Power Forwards who can play D against a 3,4 adn 5. Artest is a reasonable fascimile of Ariza's production for at least next year, there isn't a single FA that even kinda sort of replicates Lamar.
But KG guaranteed two rings! GUARANTEED! Don't athletes' guarantees mean anything anymore?!
Two years from now would be after two more seasons -- so the two-ring guarantee is still in play in this scenario.
That's really the key for me at this point. You can find 80% (at least) of Trevor Ariza without too much trouble. You can't find anything close to another Lamar Odom anywhere- they don't really exist.
That said, I'm a bit concerned that "we" are going to overpay either (or both) player based on how well they played against Orlando. I'm more concerned that that will happen in Ariza's case but I guess that's the price you pay for having your guys play well in the finals. I'd like to learn to live with it over the next few years.
I feel like Laker fans who want Ariza over Odom are over-weighting a small sample size (the playoffs). For the whole year, Odom was superior in every way. The Ariza that showed up in the playoffs is not the Ariza that you're getting for 82 games next year. Odom is completely irreplaceable, and handing Ariza more than the midlevel exception would compound the mistake contracts of Sasha and Luke Walton. He's just not worth more than the midlevel. If someone else wants to pay it, let them. I like this attitude from the Lakers. Now, if the Playoffs Trevor Ariza was going to play all 82 games next year, it'd be a way tougher decision. However, that Ariza is a mirage.
Not completely true, though I agree with the gist of what you're getting at. Odom is a heck of a ballplayer and a considerably more unique one than Ariza (in addition to being better). If he wants to stay in LA, they should be able to find a way to make that happen.
* I'm not a fan of LA, NY, or Orlando - does that give me any additional credibility? No? Ok...
Depending on your advanced metric of choice (honestly, I don't love either), we're talking 16.6 PER/7.1 WS (Odom) to 15.5/6.2 (Ariza). Not a huge difference. I'm fine with being in the minority on this, but Odom is just not a guy that the Lakers need to go to 10+ for 4 or 5 years. They're in on Bynum, Kobe, and Gasol to the tune of 50+ for a few years. I give Phil and Kobe enough credit to be able to coax value to replace Odom for much cheaper than he is likely to demand.
I don't think they'll have to.
Both of them shot very well on 3s in the playoffs, which will not continue, but my reasons for preferring Ariza have nothing to do with the playoffs. I like Odom as a guy and as a player, but I have questions about his focus, health and performance on this upcoming contract. I think Ariza is a slightly better investment and can still improve a bit.
But losing either one of them, which appears likely, will hurt the team.
Odom isn't able to play a 3 with a Bynum, and Gasol lineup, Ariza can.
I don't either, but IMO jmurph is underrating Odom's impact when he brings it, as we saw very clearly in the closeout in G5 and G6 vs. Denver and the series win over Orlando. They keys are that he is pushing 30 and doesn't always bring it. That said, the counterarguments--that there is no one else exactly like Lamar Odom and that he fits this team very well as the #3 player/sixth man--are valid.
I don't think I am, I actually think he's very talented, I'm just giving more weight to your second sentence than (maybe) you are. There has to be some negative value tied up in having to constantly wonder if your (in this scenario) highly paid talent is going to play hard on any given night.
Tripon brings up an interesting point, though, which is that much of Odom's value is tied up in Bynum panning out or not panning out. That contract has the potential to be a huge liability, if he continues to struggle with injury issues or doesn't take the next step. So I'll cede that having Bynum insurance (indirectly) in Odom is certainly something to consider.
Indeed, and this is another reason I see Ariza/Odom as a 51/49 kind of call in spite of my qualms about LO. Bynum has now hurt both knees and is only 21, and as we have (sadly) seen with Yao and others, superbig guys often get hurt a lot and it can wreck careers. So, counting on Bynum is a question.
Speaking of the Rockets, they are supposedly meeting with Ariza today and a Lakerfanboy buddy emailed me and said he heard that the Lakers contacted Artest, saying they will want him if Ariza walks (if true, that might make Ron-Ron give them a big f-you, I suppose) It seems there is sort of a three-way dosey-do going on with Turkoglu, Ariza and Artest.
You mentioned this before, and it is another valid point. The Lakers are tied into Bynum for massive coin (he is a favorite of the Buss kids, it is said) so Jackson (or his successor--I think Jackson will coach in 2009-2010, get his 12M, and then will retire at age 65, win or lose) needs to try to make it work.
I think Gasol can play some facing the basket and pass out of the high post, but he is clearly more comfortable on the blocks. Bynum did show a couple of nice pops facing the basket against Yao, but as Kareem's tutee, that is not Bynum's game either.
I think it can work. My main concern is with two low post players in the triangle. Seems to be sort of a waste. Gasol can face up to the basket, sure. But why would you want him to? He is pretty good facing up, but is better on the low block. It is very unlikely that Jackson's successor will want to play the triangle (I think), so like I said it probably isn't a long term issue.
And Bynum brings a lot of value, even if he isn't a central figure in the offense. He can still get his points on the offensive glass. But he does show that he has the potential to be a solid scorer on the low blocks, as his game develops. That said, even if he really improves, what is the probability that he will develop such a good low post offensive game that he will justify moving Gasol off the low block.
The solution is obvious -- dump the triangle if Bynum eventually becomes a good low post scorer. Of course that isn't (and probably shouldn't) happen in the near term, but will probably happen when Jackson retires.
Like I said, I didn't watch the early games. For someone who did (or who can find the stats), what % of Bynum's points came on offensive put backs? I would guess that the percentage is quite high. With 2.7 offensive boards a game, and 14.3 points a game, realistically I would guess about a 1/3 to 1/2 of his points... That is just a wild ass guess.
really? The Lakers had to roll the dice like that? Ugh. Well, when Kobe kills Artest at around game 60, this thread will be up to 10,000 comments.
Trevor- fire your agent. Your an LA native who could have been a Laker-lifer hosting the pregame show in 2023 (and 2033) and still making a fortune on your Lakerness. Whatever the delta is between the contract you get and the one the Lakers offered, it better be big because the cost is huge.
Don't know. You can derive a guestimate from the data here. 20.5% of his FGM were unassisted makes in the first 10 sec of the shot clock (presumably, he's not killin' it on the break), or 16.2% of his points.
I looked at 82games.com as well. I am a bit surprised that they didn't have what I was looking for, as it seems right up their alley. He has a pretty decent dunk percentage (21%), and a decent number of offensive rebounds opportunities come on the fast break, but it is hard to figure out from these numbers.
We've seen this movie before. Certain guys because of the limits of their game just are better in certain systems and situations. I'm just not sure what I see from Ariza in other offenses and with other personnel. I'm guessing that the market for Ariza isn't as good as his agent thinks, so he's going to go from a perfect situation personally and professionally to a worse situation on both accords with the same money.
Houston is certainly putting themselves in an interesting position. A lineup of Brooks, Ariza, Battier, Landry, and Scola is so much better than the lack of star power would indicate. Morey talks often about wanting to get a core of 3 front line players, and it looks like they will enter next season with zero. When does their cap situation become favorable, if ever?
I have a hard time seeing anyone other than the Lakers as the favorites next year. They have seriously consolidated their strength.
desperately needs people to use up possessions on the offensive end.
Conversely, how will Artest deal with potentially reduced shots in LA?
If it does occur, Artest brings some obvious positives, but he does not fit the system as well as Ariza does, even leaving age and personality out of it. He likes to hold the ball and likes iso--neither of which is going to happen much on a triangle team which has Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol and on which Ron-Ron will be the 4th option among the starters. He is also not as quick as Ariza, and given Kobe and Fisher's ages, and Walton and Vujacic's slow feet, this is an issue.
All that said, Artest brings some plusses that Ariza lacks, and if it works, the Lakers will be very tough. But this is a gamble with real downsides.
Supposedly there are some issues with the Busses and David Lee, Ariza's (and Bynum's) agent, and if Ariza leaves LA for the MLE, which the Lakers were supposedly ready to give him--I think that is questionable representation, even if he gets another year or two from another team.
May answer the age old basketball stats/scouts question: how important is it to "create your own shots?"
I wonder how Morey will handle this. That team could still maybe make the playoffs, but maybe he goes into full rebuilding mode? If so, Battier seems like a serious trading chip to dangle to a contending team. Or does T-Mac's expiring contract make the Rockets possible players in 2010? Not for LBJ or Wade, and probably not (but who knows? isn't he a Texan?) Chris Bosh... maybe Joe Johnson and someone else?
Offensively, Artest has shown himself to be a good, and willing passer in the right situation. An environment with Gasol and Bryant, with someone that Artest respects tremendously in Phil Jackson coaching seems to be fine. I would expect Artest to fit in very well offensively. This Laker team is one of the best passing teams in the NBA, probably the best, and Artest just adds to that dimension.
I'm not at all sure that's true. Chandler is not a great shooter and I've never seen him knocking shots down like Ariza the last couple months. Actually, for a guy who's a decent shooter, it's hard to believe how many bricks he throws up. About once a game he'll hit the side of the backboard or the shot clock or something.
Agree. This is part of what led me to suspect the guy hasn't seen him play much.
Re Phil Jackson:
He may be bent over and hard to look at in his age, but I think Artest will be no problem for Jackson. Ron Artest seems like the kind of player who will do well w/a coach who doesn't require false respect. I bet Artest is a good citizen, willing passer, and good teammate. I agree with the concerns about his speed, but he brings them great toughness, and he'll be happy to spot up for the three. LA looks really tough to me.
There's a lot of interesting reshuffling going on in the NBA right now.
That because you probably don't understand the NHL salary cap structure. As long as this contract is in force, you average the entire amount and apply that to the cap number (in Hossa's case, a bit of $5 million). What he actually makes next year is not applied to the cap. So it is almost certain that this contact is extremely front loaded.
Plus, if the Blackhawks buy him out, the salary cap hit is 2/3 of the buyout amount (since they signed him after age 26) averaged over twice the amount of years that were bought out. So if they contract is structured so that Hossa gets $9 million total over the last three years, they could buy him out, and only have that count as $1 million a year over a six year period. Not perfect, but better than the current $5+ million dollar hit. It is a weird system, but explains why teams are making these types of deals.
I would imagine that they trade Outlaw to the Bulls to get Heinrich. Some other stuff needs to be added in to even the money out, but Outlaw is their most valuable asset that they're willing to let go.
EDIT: And Phil's definitely coming back.
[grouchy]Haven't you guys watched Ariza play prior to the playoffs? JC, I know you have, remember those days?[/grouchy]
Chandler isn't a great shooter. Ariza's worse - prior to last season, he was probably one of the bottom 5 in the league amongst wings.
Again using 82games as a source, here's their eFG% on jumpers last year: Chandler .442, Ariza .420 (*easily* the best performance of his career). If I did a more detailed breakdown, I could present a bigger gap in skills between them.
I accept that some of last year's gains were real - but, even then, you don't want him shooting jumpers, as a general rule.
Also, interesting that, according to this report, Ariza was offered the full mid-level by Cleveland and opted to sign with Houston anyway. Likes warm weather? Worried about life on the Cavs possibly after LeBron? Oh, also, doesn't Texas have no state income tax or something? Maybe that had something to do with it. Still, Houston might not make the playoffs next year, and it's not entirely clear what their long-term plan is (I think they should go hard after Bosh, but he'll have plenty of suitors).
Earlier this week, Lee made statements to the press about being insulted by the offer, which I'm sure upset Kupchak and the Busses.
Add in that earlier in his career Kupchak made some mistakes resigning young role player for more than he should based on partial seasons of quality play, and I suspect that this presented itself as an excellent opportunity to make a point to agents to not try to hardball the Lakers if you aren't representing a superstar - I like Ariza, but Artest wanted to come to the Lakers, so a replacement for Ariza was easily available.
And I bet Ariza/Hedo/Artest/etc. are all traded within two years. That's how the NBA works.
I'd rather have Marion than Hedo, personally. I really don't understand the fascination with Hedo. He's extremely mediocre in most systems.
If Bosh is gone regardless, I'd rather have neither (at the prices it would cost Toronto). Marion's game is unlikely to age well and I agree with your assessment of Hedo, tshipman.
Also, playing in Cleveland means you have to live there for at least half the year. I'm just sayin'.
I don't get this line of thought from Ariza. I mean, I guess every NBA player has to think that they're better than they really are, but what kind of a star would Ariza even be? He can't handle, he doesn't create his own shot, not a great shooter . . . I mean, I guess Shawn Marion is the template for a guy like that, but Marion was pretty dependent on playing off of Nash and Amare.
That's the thing about everyone talking up Ariza. He's a great defender with a nose for the ball who had a really great shooting playoffs. However, he has a poor stroke from 3, which admittedly has gotten better this last year, but he's a fairly limited offensive player. He's also 24, past the age where significant improvements might be hoped for. What is the best case scenario for him?
Getting a five-year deal in Houston.
I love Ariza, but on a certain level I agree with you. But on the other hand, I think TA's basketball age is a little younger than his calendar age. He played one year of college ball and then never saw extensive playing time in the NBA until this past year. I think he can still improve a bit. And even if Ariza stays about where he is, I don't think getting Artest makes the team any better. Artest will be 30 in November and while he did, uh, get a year off, he has a lot of mileage. He has traded speed for bulk, and Ariza was the only guy the Lakers had who could really play the passing lanes and was the only set of young legs getting heavy minutes. Also, Artest likes to hold the ball and thinks he is more of a scorer than he is. Maybe playing in LA will cure that; maybe it won't. And all of the above does not even include the meltdown factor. Having Ron-Ron to body up Anthony, Pierce, James, Carter and Jefferson may make people feel more secure when the Lakers play those teams, but they beat them last year with Ariza at the 3.
The issue in Lakerkland, now, though, is Odom. With Turkoglu apparently going to Toronto, Portland can offer Odom a huge contract if they want to. The Lakers already have 81M committed to 11 players. Given the financial limitations of Jerry Buss relative to guys like Paul Allen and Mark Cuban, I was prepared for the team to keep only one of Ariza/Odom. I will not be happy, though, if they lose both of them--particularly to western teams, and particularly after selling the draft picks. I have been too hard on Kupchak, but that doesn't make him flawless. I was oppsed to the Walton contract. They overpaid Bynum and Fisher. Vujacic's contract looks like a disaster. They are paying for it now.
I'm not that worried about this. Lamar is one of the few players in the NBA who is not driven by contract value. I feel pretty comfortable with the Lamar situation and confident that he comes back to Los Angeles. He loves being a Laker, and loves the location. I really don't see him going to Portland. NY or Miami? I'd be more concerned.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main