People are acting as though the Cavs are desperate to move Wallace. However, I really don't think he was that bad. I was at least happier with his play than I was with Hughes. I think we got what we wanted from Wallace (other than the negative effect he had on Varejao). Of course you could focus on the couple of missed dunks/layups that he had or you can look at the rebounding and toughness that he added to the Cavaliers.
Sure he's overpaid, but that's just something we have to live with until either his contract expires or becomes an expiring. Overall, I don't think he's hurt the team at all.
What do you think?
Was Wallace really that bad for us
Moderator: ijspeelman
Was Wallace really that bad for us
-
TheOUTLAW
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 41,920
- And1: 2,757
- Joined: Aug 23, 2002
-
Was Wallace really that bad for us
UncleDrew wrote: I get Buckets!
-
LeQuitterNotMVP
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,699
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 06, 2007
- Location: Props to Trixx for the avy!
-
I agree, he was OK defensively; he definitely gave it his all each time out. I keep seeing all these trades with rebuilding teams where we trade Wallace - we aren't desperate to trade him, and other teams won't want him. And as you said, he'll become a very valuable expiring contract in just one year.
-
rjgraca
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,654
- And1: 43
- Joined: Dec 26, 2003
- Location: Northeast Ohio
-
I am O.K. with Ben Wallace and I don't think the CAVs are desperate to move him since his contracts only runs two more years.
Having him aboard takes away Varejao's leverage and allows the CAVs to move Varejao. As stated in previous posts -- his contract becomes another huge expiring in another year. Wallace just wants to contribute and Hughes wanted out and the CAVs would be paying more for a disgruntled Hughes over the next two seasons.
Having him aboard takes away Varejao's leverage and allows the CAVs to move Varejao. As stated in previous posts -- his contract becomes another huge expiring in another year. Wallace just wants to contribute and Hughes wanted out and the CAVs would be paying more for a disgruntled Hughes over the next two seasons.
-
L&H_05
- RealGM
- Posts: 11,569
- And1: 94
- Joined: Oct 02, 2005
- Location: I love this game !
-
I had no problems with Ben Wallace at all... He's going to play defense and rebound and that's it...I think we all understand that going in to this thing..
The thing I love about Ben (that I hate about AV) is when he caught the ball in the post he was looking to move it...I found that Ben had a pretty high basketball IQ during his short stint here... Whether it was cutting to the basket or staying under the basket once the defense cleared out, or pressuring on inbounding the ball plays etc....
It's always good to have big man depth, and I have no problems if one of those bigs is Ben Wallace... In fact, I could see Ben having a solid season next year....
The thing I love about Ben (that I hate about AV) is when he caught the ball in the post he was looking to move it...I found that Ben had a pretty high basketball IQ during his short stint here... Whether it was cutting to the basket or staying under the basket once the defense cleared out, or pressuring on inbounding the ball plays etc....
It's always good to have big man depth, and I have no problems if one of those bigs is Ben Wallace... In fact, I could see Ben having a solid season next year....
-
Icness
- NFL Analyst
- Posts: 16,964
- And1: 129
- Joined: Apr 30, 2001
- Location: Back in the 616
- Contact:
-
My issue was that he took away a scoring option offensively, and he couldn't play down the stretch in close games because of his historically awful FT shooting. He would fit better if there was a more consistent scoring threat at SG, but with Wally not hitting shots and Devin Brown not really a threat it lets the defense collapse onto Lebron too easily. One of the reasons he thrived in DET was that the other 4 guys on the court were all capable of scoring and Ben could just do his thing and his limitations were minimized.
IMO he flopped in CHI in part because the guards there struggled with outside shots and that led to so many long rebounds and easy transition opportunities for the other team. You saw some of that here with Wally misfiring and the opposing PG really pushing the tempo. The defense never gets set and Ben is wasted. Get Ben with a couple of reliable outside shooters and guards who can inhibit the initial surge and he'll be a major asset. Boobie being healthy certainly helps on both fronts, and West looks like he might have found his stroke, so I'm hopeful.
IMO he flopped in CHI in part because the guards there struggled with outside shots and that led to so many long rebounds and easy transition opportunities for the other team. You saw some of that here with Wally misfiring and the opposing PG really pushing the tempo. The defense never gets set and Ben is wasted. Get Ben with a couple of reliable outside shooters and guards who can inhibit the initial surge and he'll be a major asset. Boobie being healthy certainly helps on both fronts, and West looks like he might have found his stroke, so I'm hopeful.
It's not whether you win or lose, it's how good you look playing the game
-
DowJones
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,114
- And1: 6,733
- Joined: Feb 22, 2008
Wallace does his part. He can play defense, he is a solid rebounder, and he can block shots. I don't think he is the player we HAVE to move, although getting an upgrade at PF would be ok.
The player we HAVE to move is Wally. We need to find a better SG. Wally gave us no value in the playoffs. He hit a few open shots, but he still missed way too many and his defense/rebounding isn't good enough to off-set his shooting problems.
The reason I think we need to move Wally is that almost any SG can be put in Wally's place and defend the same. Our system and scheme make it easy for a SG to defend if he shows effort and focus. So if we can get a player like Redd at SG, he would probably defend every bit as good as Wally does in the playoffs but still give us much better offensive production. I don't think we can say the same about another PF. I think Ben Wallace gives us something unique on the defensive end that can't be easily replaced by someone that is a better offensive player...like, say, Drew Gooden.
The player we HAVE to move is Wally. We need to find a better SG. Wally gave us no value in the playoffs. He hit a few open shots, but he still missed way too many and his defense/rebounding isn't good enough to off-set his shooting problems.
The reason I think we need to move Wally is that almost any SG can be put in Wally's place and defend the same. Our system and scheme make it easy for a SG to defend if he shows effort and focus. So if we can get a player like Redd at SG, he would probably defend every bit as good as Wally does in the playoffs but still give us much better offensive production. I don't think we can say the same about another PF. I think Ben Wallace gives us something unique on the defensive end that can't be easily replaced by someone that is a better offensive player...like, say, Drew Gooden.
-
Tommy Udo 6
- Global Mod
- Posts: 42,507
- And1: 28
- Joined: Jun 13, 2003
- Location: San Francisco/East Bay CA
-
old skool
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,760
- And1: 3,499
- Joined: Jul 07, 2005
- Location: Chi
I think that the Bulls shipped Wallace out because of his attitude and declining physical ability. I'm not sure those things have become apparent in Cleveland.
I don't see what value Wallace has to the Cavs as an expiring contract? Do you think that some other team will trade a starter for an expiring contract? Certainly it won't get them under the salary cap. The Cavs were $25-million over the cap last season and it only gets worse in 2008-09.
oLd sKool
I don't see what value Wallace has to the Cavs as an expiring contract? Do you think that some other team will trade a starter for an expiring contract? Certainly it won't get them under the salary cap. The Cavs were $25-million over the cap last season and it only gets worse in 2008-09.
oLd sKool