RealGM

ampd wrote:I also think we could probably still deal him for Kyle Lowry if we could right now. Hornets, Pistons, NYK, Sacramento, Orlando would be possible targets depending on what we'd be demanding for him and how desperate we were to get rid of him.

Greivis Vasquez is a better player then Jennings.

Baddy Chuck wrote:

ampd wrote:I also think we could probably still deal him for Kyle Lowry if we could right now. Hornets, Pistons, NYK, Sacramento, Orlando would be possible targets depending on what we'd be demanding for him and how desperate we were to get rid of him.

Greivis Vasquez is a better player then Jennings.

We often agree on other things but you guys have seriously gone off the rails on this

Baddy Chuck wrote:

ackypoo wrote:jennings or damian lillard?

If Jennings was efficient he'd be Lillard.

Let's see what Lillard numbers looks like at the end of the season. His effiency is dropping fast, and the gap defensively is huge.

Baddy Chuck wrote:

ampd wrote:I also think we could probably still deal him for Kyle Lowry if we could right now. Hornets, Pistons, NYK, Sacramento, Orlando would be possible targets depending on what we'd be demanding for him and how desperate we were to get rid of him.

Greivis Vasquez is a better player then Jennings.

Vasquez is legit though, Hornets are **** scary.

But career wise, no way. Brandon has had stretches where he looks like a legit all-star, far more then Greivis

ampd wrote:We often agree on other things but you guys have seriously gone off the rails on this

I want my point guard to be able to create for others. Greivis Vasquez is one of the best in the league and he still gives you 12-15 points. I know you don't think its a good barometer but Vasquez has more 10+ assist games in probably 175 less games started.

H2tObes wrote:

Baddy Chuck wrote:

ampd wrote:I also think we could probably still deal him for Kyle Lowry if we could right now. Hornets, Pistons, NYK, Sacramento, Orlando would be possible targets depending on what we'd be demanding for him and how desperate we were to get rid of him.

Greivis Vasquez is a better player then Jennings.

Vasquez is legit though, Hornets are **** scary.

But career wise, no way. Brandon has had stretches where he looks like a legit all-star, far more then Greivis

Best 14-27 team of all time

ampd wrote:

H2tObes wrote:Vasquez is legit though, Hornets are **** scary.

But career wise, no way. Brandon has had stretches where he looks like a legit all-star, far more then Greivis

Best 14-27 team of all time

Have been really good with Gordon back, AD will probably be a top 10 player, and Anderson is what we want Ersan to be.

paulpressey25 wrote:

giraldo5 wrote:I don't think it changes anything. I think the two most likely landing spots would still be the Raptors and Jazz. The only difference is that they would want us to take bad a bad contract.

You and Baddy get this. But I'd like others on the board who really like Jennings to at least construct one trade where they send out $8-10 million of Jennings for four years and get back something positive.

That really should be the gauge of whether or not it makes sense to sign a guy to an extension worth "x" dollars. The minute after the guy signs the deal, can you move him for something positive?

I'd use that rule if I were Hammond on every contract he offers a player or accepts in a trade.

Only when we get a top ten team can we then maybe start to think about taking on neutral or trade negative contracts if we need to fill a role. But even then, we got screwed with Jason Caffey and Anthony Mason thinking we could overpay since we had the big three in place and really needed a PF.

I admit, if we sign BJ to a 5 year 10 mil per deal he either has raise his level of play to live up the deal or he won't be movable. If he is signed for 8.5 per however, even if there is no discernible difference in his play I think he will be easily movable for an expiring and a 1st rounder. If he isn't traded in the first 3 years of the deal, once he hits 26 years old (and once again assuming no improvement in his level of play), I don't think theres any way we could get back the 1st, so any trade after that point would probably have to be for a simple expiring or for a vet on BJs level.

The bottom line is, if we resign Jennings to a contract at any amount, 8 or 10 Mil or otherwise, we do it banking on him improving as a player. If we resign him and he doesn't improve we are pretty inevitably gonna be in a sh*tty situation. For that reason I do understand the people who believe that Jennings is not going to improve from where he is now as a player not wanting to resign him and wanting to trade him now. I really do. There is no guarantee that he is gonna be a better player in a year or two. I think he will, I hope he will, but I don't know how likely it is that he will.

Baddy Chuck wrote:I want my point guard to be able to create for others. Greivis Vasquez is one of the best in the league and he still gives you 12-15 points. I know you don't think its a good barometer but Vasquez has more 10+ assist games in probably 175 less games started.

I actually like Vasquez. I think he has his own flaws as a player, but who can say no to this guy on their NBA team

ampd wrote:

Baddy Chuck wrote:

ampd wrote:I also think we could probably still deal him for Kyle Lowry if we could right now. Hornets, Pistons, NYK, Sacramento, Orlando would be possible targets depending on what we'd be demanding for him and how desperate we were to get rid of him.

Greivis Vasquez is a better player then Jennings.

We often agree on other things but you guys have seriously gone off the rails on this

Yeah, what the h*ll man!? I agree with most of what u say as well baddy, but Vasquez > Jennings?!?!? U don't really believe that do u???

General Greivis would be a better fit on this bucks team imo.

DrugBust wrote:

cellomac1212 wrote:

giraldo5 wrote:You think Monta is good. I don't value your opinion at all. Go back to your board.

I said talent wins basketball games. If you don't think Monta has talent, you're the one with the crap opinion... Here's your Q to bring up stats that try to reflect Monta as a basketball player without talent. Or you can try to explain why Reddick is a better basketball player than Monta...

The question I'm asking is does your team get better with Lowry, stay the same, or get worse. I think adding a worse basketball player ultimately makes your team worse. Who would of thought that this is such a hard concept to understand. Meanwhile your team is in arms reach of a top 4 seed but the fans are looking to blow it up because every thing you guys are doing goes against your idea of what winning basketball is... Well, your winning... And the constant nagging you guys exhibit while winning goes against all logic. If you can get better with a move then make it. Blowing up a team midway through a winning year is flat out stupid and no competent GM would ever do it...

What exactly is Monta talented at? Legitimate question, not trolling. Can you let us know what you're seeing that I don't?

He's solid at the hoop, absolutely. Unfortunately he shoots quite a bit elsewhere.

He's an atrocious jump shooter. Well over half his attempts qualify as jumpers, and the he hits at a terrible percentage.

I've never seen anyone argue he's anything but a below average defender. +/-, defensive rating, opposing PER, a working set of eyeballs...take your pick and he's bad.

What exactly are his talents? Like I said, legit question. Just wanna see what you consider talented.

Well he is and has been one of the best scorers in basketball. Of course there is the efficiency argument, but that isn't an argument I think holds value when using context. What is my context? Monta isn't a great 3 point shooter and he doesn't get to the line enough to ever be an efficient player as a number one option. As long as you keep Monta in a number one scoring role, he will never be efficient. He was the poster child for advanced stats when he was the third option on a good team, but he has not been that for years. If he ever gets into a spot as even the number 2 guy, I believe his efficiency will sky rocket. He is elite at getting into the lane and disrupting any plan another team has on defense. His passing is among the best in the league from the shooting guard position. He is not a great defender but he is one of the best players in the league at creating turnovers. Whether his shot is on or off, he creates nightmares trying to match up with him. Teams are not looking at his fg% this year and saying let him shoot. The goal is still to not let Monta get going and they will contest him by all means. His presence opens up the floor for the Dunleavies and Illy's on the Bucks and would be more of a presence to teams with better spacing. I think his effectiveness on the floor is severely underrated by Bucks fans because he is extremely easy to criticize. But none the less, his talent alone is helping the Bucks win games. I can keep going with this but this is just in general. Whereas, a Reddick type player may give you better spacing and shooting, I don't think he can give any other thing I listed here. With a catch and shoot player replacing Monta, you guys are really going to hate Jennings as teams will take him out of the game if he has to handle the pg role 100% by himself...

ampd wrote:

Baddy Chuck wrote:

ampd wrote:I also think we could probably still deal him for Kyle Lowry if we could right now. Hornets, Pistons, NYK, Sacramento, Orlando would be possible targets depending on what we'd be demanding for him and how desperate we were to get rid of him.

Greivis Vasquez is a better player then Jennings.

We often agree on other things but you guys have seriously gone off the rails on this

I hate Greivus for some reason dating back to Maryland but they are real close as to who's better. Lean Jennings but it's close.

Greivis might be the worst defensive PG in the entire league, and everyone knew it coming into his draft class. He's fine offensively, but he can't guard anyone. He absolutely has to be amazing on offense to not be a net negative.

greivis is beno udrih.

DrugBust wrote:Greivis might be the worst defensive PG in the entire league, and everyone knew it coming into his draft class. He's fine offensively, but he can't guard anyone. He absolutely has to be amazing on offense to not be a net negative.

This. Vazquez is a statue defensively. To me he's basically Calderon with slightly better vision and slightly worse shooting metrics. Much rather have Jennings. Jennings may lack effort at times defensively but when he's locked in he causes massive issues with his on ball D. That to me gets overlooked with the contract stuff too. Obviously, he has to improve his efficiency. We all know that.

ackypoo wrote:greivis is beno udrih.

Greivis is much better at passing and rebounding

giraldo5 wrote:Greivis Vasquez is a better player then Jennings.

We often agree on other things but you guys have seriously gone off the rails on this[/quote]

I hate Greivus for some reason dating back to Maryland but they are real close as to who's better. Lean Jennings but it's close.[/quote]
No, it's not really that close. As Drugbust rightly points out, Vasquez is a one sided player who puts up stats on a terrible team that had zero scoring options until Gordon came back from injury... U seriously put Vasquez in the same tier as Jennings but put also put Holiday in a tier above him? What the h*ll are u talking about??

whatthe_buck!? wrote:We often agree on other things but you guys have seriously gone off the rails on this

Yeah, what the h*ll man!? I agree with most of what u say as well baddy, but Vasquez > Jennings?!?!? U don't really believe that do u???[/quote]
At the very least the Hornets aren't going to give up anything of much value when they have a player who isn't much worse then Jennings. But yeah, I think I'd take Vasquez over Jennings. Now if you told me in a few years Vasquez was getting $10+ million as well I would cut ties with him too. I don't think Jennings is going to improve. I think he's an inefficient 18 points without any qualities that make a point guard, Vasquez looks to have made the jump to a guy I would love to watch running the offense.

LUKE23 wrote:

DrugBust wrote:Greivis might be the worst defensive PG in the entire league, and everyone knew it coming into his draft class. He's fine offensively, but he can't guard anyone. He absolutely has to be amazing on offense to not be a net negative.

This. Vazquez is a statue defensively. To me he's basically Calderon with slightly better vision and slightly worse shooting metrics. Much rather have Jennings. Jennings may lack effort at times defensively but when he's locked in he causes massive issues with his on ball D. That to me gets overlooked with the contract stuff too. Obviously, he has to improve his efficiency. We all know that.

Calderon is the right comparison for Vasquez.