RealGM

Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojYahooNBA 8m

After reaching an impasse with RFA Gerald Henderson, Charlotte's exploring sign-and-trade possibilities with multiple teams, sources tell Y!
Expand

Not really a dead eye shooter, but should Pistons be interested? Could Stuckey straight up swap get it done? Could start over Caldwell-Pope initially, but if we have confidence in KCP, than having the expiring Stuckey might be better for us long term AND Stuckey can play some point, Henderson cannot. We'd be left with Knight/Bynum/Siva as our only options.

Considering Stuckey's contract, wouldn't we have to give Henderson a contract of nearly the same mil/yr if we were to give them Stuckey? Also, I'm not really sure that Henderson is really that much better than Stuckey.

I think Henderson is a fairly textbook example of the sort of player we shouldn't be making any kind of long term investment in.

Our weakness at that spot makes almost any option tempting, but in this case the fit simply isn't there. No guard without range, IMO, has a long term future on this team.

Joe Dumars played with his father and he is a huge upgrade over whatever thrash we got to play at SG so we should jump all over it. He is athletic and a well rounded SG, our team would be way better with him.

The Pistons supposedly had interest in him at the deadline.

How much is he looking for? 4yr/24mil?

He shot 33% last year...not terrible. Honestly this whole 3pt shooting thing is being blown out of proportion. Rip wasn't a 3pt shooter. Sheed was not much more of a threat than Smith. Prince wasn't a gunner. If he can be had for Stuckey you do it.

^Don't know. But I wouldn't go longer than three years with him.

Rather have Gordon and his horrible contract and question marks with stucky's expiring.

ComboGuardCity wrote:He shot 33% last year...not terrible. Honestly this whole 3pt shooting thing is being blown out of proportion. Rip wasn't a 3pt shooter. Sheed was not much more of a threat than Smith. Prince wasn't a gunner. If he can be had for Stuckey you do it.

See, I don't think its overblown. You need guys on your team that can do things far away from the basket. That doesn't always have to come in the form of 3 point shooting but it certainly tends to on many successful teams.

Show me ONE team that has reached the finals in the last 15-20 years that didn't have 3 point shooting as a significant part of their rotation. The closest I could find were the Nets/Sixers teams of the early 2000s who ruled the most pathetic conferences in NBA history, would not have been top 5 in the other conference and were never considered serious threats to win it all. Before that, you gotta go back to the 1993 Knicks. Get much earlier than that and you're at a point in NBA history where 3 point shooting wasn't utilized to the extent it is now. Point is, teams without strong spacing that have real success are the exception rather than the rule.

I honestly don't see why this is such a controversial idea, here. If most of your scorers do their best work close to the basket you're going to be an easy team to defend. The farther away from the basket your shooters operate, the more space your slashers and post players get.

And believe me, I understand the expectation isn't to reach the finals next year. But spacing has been demonstrated to be a necessary component of contending level teams, and we should be at least trying to move in the direction of having some.

We already have our probable 3 biggest minute players lacking not only in 3 point range but even in a reliable mid range game to speak of. Henderson can do some mid range stuff, but he's a below average range player by the standards of his position.

Henderson plays defense, he has a decent jumper, and he's a decent athlete...I'll take him on a 3yr/15.5mil deal...And yeah, I'll offer Stuckey for him...

I don't think he would sign for that cheap.

Jodi wrote:Henderson plays defense, he has a decent jumper, and he's a decent athlete...I'll take him on a 3yr/15.5mil deal...And yeah, I'll offer Stuckey for him...

I imagine he wants more than a $15 mil deal if hes at an impasse with the Bobcats.

Henderson is the only player on the Lolcats roster that I like. He has a respectable jumper and is yet another elite defender to add to this team. I say we go after him. Him and KCP can battle for the SG spot. I would rather have him than some 3point specialist who brings nothing else to the table.

Sheeeeed wrote:

Jodi wrote:Henderson plays defense, he has a decent jumper, and he's a decent athlete...I'll take him on a 3yr/15.5mil deal...And yeah, I'll offer Stuckey for him...

I imagine he wants more than a $15 mil deal if hes at an impasse with the Bobcats.

Maybe Jordan's being cheap...

If we could work out a deal that doesn't involve our young core or expiring deals I'd do it. Something like Singler and Jj for Henderson would be dopeee.

Snakebites wrote:

ComboGuardCity wrote:He shot 33% last year...not terrible. Honestly this whole 3pt shooting thing is being blown out of proportion. Rip wasn't a 3pt shooter. Sheed was not much more of a threat than Smith. Prince wasn't a gunner. If he can be had for Stuckey you do it.

Show me ONE team that has reached the finals in the last 10 years that didn't have 3 point shooting as a significant part of their rotation. The closest I could find were the Nets/Sixers teams of the early 2000s who ruled the most pathetic conferences in NBA history.

I honestly don't see why this is such a controversial idea, here. If most of your scorers do their best work close to the basket you're going to be an easy team to defend. The farther away from the basket your shooters operate, the more space your slashers and post players get.

We already have our probable 3 biggest minute players lacking not only in 3 point range but even in a reliable mid range game to speak of. Henderson can do some mid range stuff, but he's a below average range player by the standards of his position.

That's a one dimensional measure. If you want to make it to the finals, based off the past decade, you need either a big man + 4 3pt shooters or a superstar perimeter player paired with a big man.

bennett13 wrote:If we could work out a deal that doesn't involve our young core or expiring deals I'd do it. Something like Singler and Jj for Henderson would be dopeee.

Yup, I would love that. JJ has no place in the rotation and Singler is our 3rd string SF behind Smith and Middleton. I would throw in some 2nd rounders too. I have no idea how much CHA values him though...

He was their 1st option the second half of the season but if they can't agree I can see that trade with a few 2nd rounders working.

ComboGuardCity wrote:

Snakebites wrote:

ComboGuardCity wrote:He shot 33% last year...not terrible. Honestly this whole 3pt shooting thing is being blown out of proportion. Rip wasn't a 3pt shooter. Sheed was not much more of a threat than Smith. Prince wasn't a gunner. If he can be had for Stuckey you do it.

Show me ONE team that has reached the finals in the last 10 years that didn't have 3 point shooting as a significant part of their rotation. The closest I could find were the Nets/Sixers teams of the early 2000s who ruled the most pathetic conferences in NBA history.

I honestly don't see why this is such a controversial idea, here. If most of your scorers do their best work close to the basket you're going to be an easy team to defend. The farther away from the basket your shooters operate, the more space your slashers and post players get.

We already have our probable 3 biggest minute players lacking not only in 3 point range but even in a reliable mid range game to speak of. Henderson can do some mid range stuff, but he's a below average range player by the standards of his position.

That's a one dimensional measure. If you want to make it to the finals, based off the past decade, you need either a big man + 4 3pt shooters or a superstar perimeter player paired with a big man.

My line isn't arbitrary like your counterexample is (your counterexample also isn't even really true, but that is entirely beside the point).

The principle of spacing and its importance is sound, the fact that NO (or few) team has reached the finals without it was more supporting evidence rather than a concept to be taken at face value in and of itself.

Your scorers need room to operate. An opposing teams defense shouldn't be able to lock you down simply by clogging the lane. Its a sound and very fundamental concept and its evident that contending teams have been utilizing that concept regardless of how their teams are otherwise built. I seriously can't think of one team that was considered a serious threat to win it all without good spacing in the last 20 years.