User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
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. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.9247 seconds
54 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.
People forget how young Harden is - 23 (younger than Lin or Asik). His game has some yellow flags (I'm not sure how he'll respond to being a #1 option or playing heavy minutes) - but he's more than 125% of Martin. More efficient, able to serve as a secondary facilitator, decent defender with demonstrated ability to improve.
I'm not sure how much of this is the preseason talking, but I like the Asik deal more every day - there's some parallels with Ben Wallace's big break here.
How's Lin's knee? Think he'll be good but it may be a year off.
Wonder if OKC does this deal in a world where LAL didn't have their big offseason? Think they did get fair value - Martin is still solid (though a bad defender - do you platoon him and Thabo?), but what consolation is that?
That '04 bench sounds quite a bit better than the current one to me (mind you, that's in large part because I'm way down on Antawn and Hill as defenders - I may be wrong on the latter). At least Meeks should be a nice fit.
Maybe, but how much of that is dependent on spending a decent amount of time on the floor with Durant and Westbrook, when he effectively becomes a distributor and the #3 scoring option? He's only the #1 scoring option on a bad (lower third tier) team, in my opinion.
Not seeing it. You are right about Jamison's defense; as I have said througout the thread, I have never been a fan of his, but I think he can fill a limited role on this team. But Rush, Medvedenko, rookie Cook, old Fox, old Russell, ancient Grant, young Walton--that is a dreadful group of players, and Devean George wasn't very good, either. These guys were exposed for all to see when Karl Malone went down in the Finals. Grant wasn't available at that point, either.
Defense in general is an issue on the current roster; they will be depending on outscoring opponents and on Howard to carry a lot of guys with defensive issues, including Nash and Bryant. This is yet another reason that so much hinges on Mike Brown and why the focus on him will be so intense. Brown has said he is a defensive coach, and he has talked a lot about his ability to coach defense. Whether he is able to
a) Craft a decent defense around Howard
b) Create rotations that neither overexpose the backup guys nor overwork the core guys while mixing the skills effectively
will play a huge role in how good the Lakers are this year. Health will ultimately be more important (Bryant is questionable for Tuesday, although I think everyone on the planet expects him to play) but Brown's coaching will be a big deal this year.
I think it's a good deal for Houston. It would make me upset if I were an OKC fan.
HARDEN .605/.509
MARTIN .554/.486
Martin's 10/11 numbers were about where Harden's were last year; that was his age 27 season. Martin turns 30 in February. Maybe Presti figures Martin's numbers will jump back up with Durant and Westbrook around.
Harden, as DK noted, is 23. Sam Presti is smarter than I am, but if I were an OKC fan, I think I would rather they amnestied Perkins if that is what it took to keep Harden. I haven't looked at this in detail yet, but at this point I agree with berg, and I would add that if my team is squarely in the title hunt, I probably don't want them giving up the best guy in a deal--especially when that guy is 23 years old. Depth and picks are nice, but at the same time, you pretty much want to get as many players in or near the Top 30 in the league as you can. Daryl Morey has been trying to get one ever since Yao Ming retired.
Good question, but I think OKC's view on that should be "F the Lakers."
I agree that they got decent value--but moving Harden seems to me like something you do when you don't think you can go all the way, not when you have a young team that just lost to James and Wade in the Finals.
It could be not wanting to go over the salary cap, or it could be that with their current salary situation they feel they could get someone close to Harden's value for a significantly lower price, either in Martin or some young player in the near future. Or the hunch that a large part of Harden's value may be based on being surrounded by Durant and Westbrook.
Harden might be a really good #1 - his "macro #s" suggest that he can. I'm just not sure how well he'll shoot when defenses are geared to stop him, think he's more vulnerable here than one might think.
I do think it's interesting that OKC was willing to pay close to max, but not max itself.
**
Part of my issue with the Lakers bench is that's mostly composed of guys I flat out don't want on my roster in any capacity - pretty much everyone but Meeks, Hill, and Jamison. And I'm not sure about Jamison for a team without Howard behind him (high usage, low efficiency, no d - that's a poor man's Blatche* ... uh, before you talk intangibles). Put another way, George and Russell were better than Ebanks or Clark, etc... Slava might top Hill - it depends on how you feel about the latter's defense (only a few months ago, Houston was desperate to dump him remember). Meeks is a solid bench dude, though I'm not sure he can do anything besides catch and shoot (albeit really well). Hill/Meeks/Jamison all might realistically be better than any bench guy was in '94 - that does say something.
I retract "quite a bit better" - not convinced that '94 wasn't better though.
* okay - that maaaay have been hyperbole
I mean - if they *had* to trade him. I'd rather have Harden.
Well, Hollinger alluded to that--mentioned CHI, DAL, and now OKC in relation to the CBA. But I think Presti decided that he wants Perkins around to mess with D12 since Howard is in Los Angeles now, and that the picks, Martin, and Lamb pretty much make up for Harden. Harden is obviously a far, far better player than Perkins is in a vacuum, but Presti may feel that Perkins (and Sefolosha) are more important in terms of matching up with LA.
I don't think so, based either on the numbers or on the eyeball test. You seem to think Hill is Bill Murray in Space Jam or something, and given how much Morey moves guys around, I am not that concerned with Houston being "desperate to get rid of him." The biggest problem with Hill at the moment is that he has a herniated disk and isn't actually playing.
As to Devean George, he was starting on the 2004 team, and in any case, there is not yet conclusive evidence that he was actually better than Devin Ebanks. To be as good as Devean George, Ebanks will have to be "pretty bad" and "around replacement level." WRT Jamison, basically, the Lakers have switched from Bynum and Murphy/McRoberts to Howard/Jamison.
Lakers fans at the moment are most concerned about Steve Blake, who, as expected, will open the season as the backup 1. I was never a Blake fan and didn't like the signing to begin with, and would prefer that they had say, a guy like Sundiata Gaines (some people are saying that the Lakers should try to add Delonte West if he is really available) so that would be my top worry.
Finally, Sacre is probably going to make the 12-man and may actually open the season in the rotation if Hill is not ready.
the good news is, i would not at all be surprised if those shots start falling for him, and he winds up shooting 50% from beyond the arc this season. he has that kind of talent, and if he'd have just hit the shots he should have hit, he probably could've done that last year.
OKC is really the only team I follow, but I don't see how this is all that bad for them. Sure you'd rather have Harden stay all things considered, but he wouldn't take the team's offer, so this is probably better than paying himn too much, and being stuck with no flexibility on the payroll. OKC already had more talent than they could keep on this year's roster, so Aldrich, Cook, and Hayward are really not much of a loss.
I predict they'll still be plenty good, and wouldn't be suprised if there was another trade either now or during the season to strengthen the team for the playoff run.
That's an interesting possibility I haven't seen anyone raise yet. What if they use Lamb and/or picks to grab someone in-season? Any ideas as to who that someone could be? Josh Smith?
As for the picks: Isn't it possible that Toronto and Dallas both miss the playoffs this year? Six teams had better records than the Mavs last year, and Utah was tied with them. Houston, NO, and Utah have all improved; if Minnesota gets its players back quickly enough, it could threaten for the playoffs, too. Maybe GSW if those guys can stay healthy. It's not out of the question that Dallas ends up a lottery team.
That isn't in any dispute; the question is whether trading Harden moves them closer to the title. Being "good" isn't what it's about for Oklahoma City anymore. They will almost certainly be good for the duration of Durant's and Westbrook's deals. As far as trading the assets for another guy, unless they can move them for a Top-10 guy, it would probably be a lateral move.
Presti hasn't really made any big mistakes (maybe Fisher, but having a better backup 1 would not have changed the results of the 2012 Finals) and has made many fine moves, so he deserves the BOTD here. Maybe Harden isn't as good as he appears to be; maybe Lamb will be as good as some people think he will and as I said, maybe Perkins and Sefolosha actually matter more against the revamped Lakers than Harden would have. Or maybe this was just about $.
One thing I look at when a big trade is made is what the fans of the teams the trading teams are trying to beat think of it. There is obviously a lot of noise and bias in those reactions, but I think it tells you something, and IMO most Lakers and Spurs fans (along with Clippers, Nuggets and Grizzlies et al fans) probably like their chances against OKC more now that OKC has traded Harden.
Sure, but, for example, SCHOENE (and some guys here) has them each finishing 9th. As someone said upthread, these picks are not likely to be particularly high ones. Both of those teams appear on paper to be competitive, middle-of-the-pack squads.
I read Hollinger's take on the deal and agree wholeheartedly on the OKC piece and am 90% as confident on the Houston side. (My issue - I'm not sure that HOU will be as attractive a FA destination as he suggests - but it could be.)
Slava/Hill: Through the first 4 years of his career, Slava posted a 13.5 PER / .091 WS/48. To date, Hill has a 14.2 / .095. Slava's rep on D was bad (and understandably so - slow feet, foul prone, not great at help), but IIRC his on-ball metrics and +/- were actually pretty decent. Hill is athletic and can block shots, but opposing players have crushed him over his career (he's a little under tall like Medvedenko, but also understrong), he's equally foul prone, and his +/- isn't so good. Now, we know that Slava imploded after that and that Hill has a higher ceiling than Medvedenko ever had - I wouldn't be shocked if Hill turned into an average ballplayer (no small feat). But, it's no lock that he's better than Slava. [Hmmm... do think I'm engaging in a bit of devil's advocacy here.]
It's not being moved that made Houston desperate to get rid of him - it's his specific use in the Fisher deal that suggests it.
George/Ebanks: Yes. I'll put it this way - if I have to choose between Ebanks (who's only 23 - there is a chance he turns into a poor man's Ariza) and, say, Derrick Brown (who's floating around looking for a job), I take Brown every time.
Mentioning Gaines is just baiting me, sir. (I like Gaines.)
That assumes that they're trading *all* the assets for another guy, which hardly seems likely. If you hold onto Martin and trade some of the other assets (Lamb, a pick, some salary to make it work) for Smith, e.g., isn't Martin + Smith > Harden?
That said, I don't think this is a bad deal for OKC. Obviously it makes them a bit worse for this year, but I don't know that it reduces their expected # of championships over the next 7 years. Kevin Martin is going to be a lot more valuable where he's heading than he has been before; he's miscast as a focal point of an offense, which is what he has needed to be in his career to date. The one problem I see is the picks -- when was the last time a contender managed to seamlessly work in and develop a mid-1R type of talent seamlessly? You can grab role players into a contender via the draft, guys like DeJuan Blair or Norris Cole or Omer Asik, but a contender simply doesn't have the playing time to allow such a guy to show whether he's a hero or a zero.
I may be the last Cole Aldrich defender on the planet, but I think he could be an NBA player. He's maybe an example of this -- OKC has no playing time for him to find out, which makes guys/picks like that simply not as valuable to them. I guess you can try to flip them for a Ray Allen or something.
I think you raise an interesting point, but I think that's a failing of the coach if they can't find time to grow players. There's a lot of minutes out there, especially for a team like OKC that's an absolute lock to be a 50+ win team for every year over the next 8 unless Durant or Westbrook gets hurt. That's even if they are working these other guys in.
If the Hawks do trade Smith (not a given, I don't think), what do you expect them to get for him? He's on the last year of his current deal.
As to the Fisher deal, IIRC that was a get-a-pick-for-an-expiring thing for Morey, more than wanting Hill out of his line of sight, but perhaps I am wrong.
WRT Ebanks, the question is whether he can play adequate D/low usage/high eff O and avoid making a lot of mistakes in 12-15 MPG stints. Maybe he can't, but I don't think that has been established yet. As to Derrick Brown, that's fine, but you do tend to develop strong attachments to fringe guys who catch your eye in some way. Kupchak drafted Ebanks, and as I have said many times, Kupchak has had trouble with the back end of the roster. You can make a case that the Lakers should have cut Ebanks and kept Barnes in that job, but I think the jury is still out.
Blake, however, is an issue. The one thing that he has going for him is that he still has a decent stroke from 3, and as an old guy with a guaranteed deal, will be looking to fill his role rather than trying to impress people to get a better contract someplace else (this was always one of Jordan Farmar's problems dealing with Phil). But I have always thought that the Lakers wanted Blake based on images ("heady white guy", played on a National Champion in college) rather than on what he does.
I see what you're saying, and I do not think you or the other people defending OKC are crazy, but I just think it is not enough to overcome trading someone as good as Harden is when you don't have to. The NBA is all about maximizing the talent of the 5 guys you get to play at a given time- one player has so much more of an impact than in any other sport that it almost never makes sense to willfully trade someone who is an All-Star type. Yes, they got a lot of young players and future picks, but you get those resources hoping they develop into something like Harden. Bird in hand. Trying to precisely start and stop the rookie contract clock for each guy is never going to work out. No team bats 1.000 on lottery picks (Presti drafted Jeff Green).
Also, fit is important, but it is a distant second to talent, and it isn't like Harden had trouble staying on the court with Westbrook and Durant. I think several people are unfairly discounting Harden because he had a bad 5 game stretch at the end of the year against the best perimeter defense in the league (it is kind of funny that Houston is now built around Lin and Harden who both fell to pieces against Miami).
Best case scenario, Martin's efficiency bounces back somewhat this year, Lamb develops into what people hope he can be, and you end up with 75% of what you had with Harden in the first place. I would have signed Harden, amnestied Perkins, and traded Maynor for the best asset available. That avoids the tax hell and keeps the star-level player that they identified and developed.
From the Houston side, you now have a Lin-Harden backcourt, and pray that the metrics are correct on them, pray that Asik and one of your 79 3/4s works out and voila, contender.
Kawhi Leonard last year
Yup, I agree. Also, from Houston's POV, the deal actually has good upside. There's a chance that Harden, freed from Durant/Westbrook and still young at 23, gets better by adding more usage and keeping the efficiency.
I think the OKC deal was a bad deal. Anytime you find yourself saying, "We have to trade Harden to keep Kendrick Perkins," you're thinking about things the wrong way.
Hill - small sample size for hill w la. If u want to credit him w that high per then note the oppo per of 25.6
I do develop attachments to certain fringe guys like brown, but only mentioned him because I know he has other fans here / came up recently. Ebanks looks like a solid defender who can help on the boards. He's probably useless on O. You can do better.
Aldrich - think he's a solid backup, but I've a long history of overrating big men from Kansas.
And how do you turn "Valanciunas" into "Valansuenas"? Try sounding it out first. Even if you're going to ignore the actual pronunciation you could put the letters in the right order.
Or the hunch that a large part of Harden's value may be based on being surrounded by Durant and Westbrook.
Sounds like a lose-lose deal then?
The more interesting question, it seems to me, is whether he should have chosen Ibaka over Harden.
When Doc Rivers was in Orlando, he told the media bout the Knicks, "You can't rebuild at the Garden." He was adamant about it. But is that really true? Dolan is too stupid and impetuous to stick to a plan, let alone plan a rebuild - but would the NY fans be so opposed to it? (Not saying at the moment, just in theory.)
You can't really play Jefferson with Asik--too slow on the perimeter. I would think they would target someone like the ATL bigs, but I don't think they're available (I could be wrong). Scola would have actually been a pretty good fit. I think they would be in the market for a spacing/stretch 4.
Millsap seems likely to go from Utah - but not sure that he's young enough for Morey, given his height and lack of d.
Even granted that there's obviously less duplication of value if you pair Ibaka up with Durant/Westbrook as opposed to Harden, I still don't see it...
It would have beat the hell out of sucking and not rebuilding, which is what they did.
And if you want to compare him unfavorably to Slava Medvedenko, then note that Hill's PER went up with the Lakers.
Wasn't making big claims for the 19.3--just pointing out that on the new team, in the new role, he did better. As far as the D issues, I will watch for that, but that is as you concede a small sample size, though, and I have not seen a bunch of people saying that Hill is transcendently awful on that side of the ball. Hill had a 15.1--league average--in Houston.
As to Ebanks, perhaps. But the payroll is over 100M as it is, so the Lakers are going to be able to "do better" at almost any spot after the big 4. The question is whether Ebanks will be adequate to that role. Basically, you and Hollinger are arguing that the Lakers' bench is historically bad, a collection of guys who can't get out of their own way and will kill the team. I am not yet convinced that is the case, with the caveat that Mike Brown has not shown much skill in stabilizing rotations and developing/utilizing bench guys. So we will see.
Nice.
I was snippy in 649. Sorry.
Who the #### is "We" there for Simmons? He fell for it, like a hack, because David Stern showed up on his podcast and Darryl Morey is his friend. He got bought off with access.
HOU, DEN, NOH, CLE, UTA/POR/TOR for me.
Who the #### is "We" there for Simmons? He fell for it, like a hack, because David Stern showed up on his podcast and Darryl Morey is his friend. He got bought off with access.
He tries to represent the common fan and I think most fans fell for it, as is usually the case in all disputes between players and owners.
Caveats: A lot of that time was likely against 2nd units; the piece calls Harden a No.2 due to his D. Piece is very bullish on trade for HOU, though.
I have to be more Pacific Time Zone-focused than that. I am thinking:
GS POR DEN HOU MIN
indiana's gone double hansbrough - ben made the team.
---
SAC (cousins, robinson, and johnson could be a really good frontcourt, and thornton, thomas, tyreke, and jimmer have massive scoring ability in the backcourt)
I think the Kings are the least interesting team to me this season this side of Charlotte - and even then, I'm much more interested in MKG than anyone on Sac.
---
Bulls are Gibson are about $2mil/year off in their negotiations, supposedly. That seems like a lot, but we'll see.
BP, Hollinger and the group here all seem to see the East the same way: Miami, and then the same knot of teams behind them 2-8. BP has Atlanta seeded 2 at 49-33 and Indiana seeded 8 at 43-39. Between them are New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Brooklyn. I am neither smart enough, nor really all that interested in, trying to figure out what order these teams will finish in, but I do have some opinions. BP pointed out that the SCHOENE metric is a bit at odds with the subjective view of Indiana, and I am in agreement with the subjective view. I think George will get a little better, and I think Hill will as well. I think Augustin and DK favorite Ian Mahinmi will help a little off the bench, and I think Vogel is a pretty good coach. West and Granger may drop off a little, but I think that Indiana's lack of a huge weak spot/balance will serve them well over the 82-game schedule. I see them more as the 49-33 #2 seed.
I think Brooklyn will be in trouble in about two years; the CBA restricts teams over the tax line from doing much, and I see them as being overcommitted to this group. But in spite of the rim protection issues, I think Brooklyn will have a pretty good team this year. Johnson is overpaid and Williams is a bit overrated by the MSM, but the former is still good and the latter is very good. Wallace probably has another year or two of effectiveness left, and Lopez and Humphries, while I don't really like either of them, each do some things very well. I think the buzz around the new digs may give the Nets a little boost as well, and I see them as a 3 or 4 seed.
But, I think that Philadelphia, Chicago, or Boston would have a better shot at scaring Miami in a seven-game than Indiana or Brooklyn would. The caveats about the first two teams are obvious: Bynum and Rose. Boston, even with all the new faces, is Boston and as long as Garnett is Garnett, you take them seriously.
That leaves New York and Atlanta. Subjectively, I don't like the New York team. They are much deeper than the Lakers, but they have old guys, Stoudemire has physical questions, and they don't have the Lakers' ceiling. I think they will go about 45-37. Atlanta has an unusual roster, and there are some things to like about it. But I don't like them over 82 as much as I like Indiana, and I don't see them bothering Miami.
As to the rest, I think Washington will be a bit better than BP has them (25-57) and while I think Toronto will be much improved, I think they will 35-37 games rather than 40.
If no one wants it, we could just let it go as an undead team.
Draft order would be... reverse order of picks? (I drafted 4th, FWIW.)
I'll take it if no one else wants it.
BBTF-mail me your addy, and I'll transfer it over.
And Harden will find out how much pull he has with his new teammates (a lot, I'm guessing, by management fiat), and how that affects those new teammates.
I set the max at 12, and we're still at 8 teams. Posted below is the info. Right now its by week to week matchup.
URL is: http://basketball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/league/tblabb
League ID is: 80319
And Password is: TBLABB
We draft at 7PM PST, so about 2 hours from now of this post.
Interesting scoring settings - where'd you get them?
Huh. Yahoo says the draft is set for 7 p.m. MST but I misread that as MDT and so raced home from work.
I was thinking them for 48 wins or so before any injury news. This might hurt a few games, but then again, if it puts Melo at the four for longer stretches of time, it might not. Amare was pretty bad for the first few months of the season last year.
Also, Bill Simmons called this a couple of years ago - D'Antoni, trying to save his job, runs Amare into the ground; knee pain ensues.
Listening to Zach Lowe on the Simmons podcast, both are referring to Harden as a "top 20" guy in the league, and I've heard that elsewhere, too. Is that really true? Seems high. Top 30, maybe. But top 20?
FWIW, he finished 26th on #NBARank and 29th on CBS' rankings.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main