Diogu's biggest issue was his lack of feel for the game. This resulted in him being a bad defender and a liability in a motion offense. The problem with guys like this is without minutes they will never conquer this weakness and the team will likely be making a significant sacrifice if they try to provide the playing time.
If Hickson is the same kind of low bb iq player Diogu was we would probably get the same result Diogu delivered. Diogu and Shawne Williams were similar in that many times their lack of fundamental skills caused them to play their way off the floor. I think this experience might be a part of why the most recent drafts have seen Larry go with more seasoned players.
Z for Murph?
Moderators: pacers33granger, Grang33r, pacerfan, Jake0890, boomershadow
Re: Z for Murph?
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,486
- And1: 632
- Joined: Jun 11, 2009
-
Re: Z for Murph?
- Charcoal Filtered
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,221
- And1: 36
- Joined: Jan 12, 2003
- Location: Vancouver, WA
Re: Z for Murph?
With the cap space we had this offseason, we picked up Earl Watson and Jones. My point is that only minor cap space is not going to yeild a true franchise player for us. The replacement for Murphy would also cut into our cap space for the 2011 offseason.
I have no problem waiting a year for Murphy's value to be higher or just letting his contract expire.
I have no problem waiting a year for Murphy's value to be higher or just letting his contract expire.
The NBA: Where convicted tax evader Ken Mauer happens to officiate.
Re: Z for Murph?
- Scoot McGroot
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 44,767
- And1: 14,029
- Joined: Feb 16, 2005
-
Re: Z for Murph?
I don't have a problem with waiting for him to expire either. He's certainly useful.
The argument is whether or not you believe Hickson is a solid player, or can be a solid player within a few years. If you think the combo of Hansbrough and Hickson has the potential to be a very solid PF combo (better than Murphy over the next 3 years or so), then you make the deal. Hickson is cheap enough on his rookie contract that his $1.8 million or so in 2011 isn't too much of an issue financially.
The argument is whether or not you believe Hickson is a solid player, or can be a solid player within a few years. If you think the combo of Hansbrough and Hickson has the potential to be a very solid PF combo (better than Murphy over the next 3 years or so), then you make the deal. Hickson is cheap enough on his rookie contract that his $1.8 million or so in 2011 isn't too much of an issue financially.
Re: Z for Murph?
- Charcoal Filtered
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,221
- And1: 36
- Joined: Jan 12, 2003
- Location: Vancouver, WA
Re: Z for Murph?
Scoot, I have not seen a whole lot out of Hickson. What I have does not impress me.
The NBA: Where convicted tax evader Ken Mauer happens to officiate.
Re: Z for Murph?
- MillerTime101
- Senior
- Posts: 551
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jul 08, 2008
Re: Z for Murph?
If we are out of the playoffs near the deadline I think you would have to look at a deal like this, Hickson is a nice piece and for the 11 million we would be saving next year we could probably land another nice piece via FA.
That being said I doubt we will find ourselves that far out of a playoff spot so I doubt Larry makes a deal like this. Bird appears to be more geared to adding pieces and slowly rebuilding then simply tearing apart the team and getting whatever he can back.
That being said I doubt we will find ourselves that far out of a playoff spot so I doubt Larry makes a deal like this. Bird appears to be more geared to adding pieces and slowly rebuilding then simply tearing apart the team and getting whatever he can back.
Oh my Blog! http://millertime101.wordpress.com/
Re: Z for Murph?
- count55
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,431
- And1: 3
- Joined: Dec 21, 2005
- Location: In Memoriam: pf
Re: Z for Murph?
Make no mistake...if we were to do something like this, we would be doing it strictly to stay under the luxury tax for 2010-2011 season. We would not be doing it to try to land some free agent.
My sense is how close we are to the playoffs would have little to do with it. If attendance remains bad next year, we'll do it simply to save money.
My sense is how close we are to the playoffs would have little to do with it. If attendance remains bad next year, we'll do it simply to save money.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and clearly, neither do you.
Re: Z for Murph?
- old rem
- RealGM
- Posts: 50,753
- And1: 1,080
- Joined: Jun 14, 2005
- Location: Witness Protection
Re: Z for Murph?
Scoot McGroot wrote:Hickson's talented enough to be more than just a starting PF in this league.
Maybe I'm a bit biased as I pretty much only get to watch Cav's games all year long living up here in Cleveland, but Hickson is a very interesting player.
I'd be relatively ok with having Hickson and Hansbrough battle it out for the starting PF spot if we're not anywhere close to a playoff team, as currently constructed.
Hansborough is a much better player than Hickson who's athletic but unskilled. Murphy's mix of shooting and rebounding would be hard to replace and Z is now incredibly slow.
CENSORED... No comment.
Re: Z for Murph?
- Dunthreevy
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,946
- And1: 1,353
- Joined: Mar 03, 2008
- Location: Indianapolis, IN
-
Re: Z for Murph?
- MillerTime101
- Senior
- Posts: 551
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jul 08, 2008
Re: Z for Murph?
count55 wrote:Make no mistake...if we were to do something like this, we would be doing it strictly to stay under the luxury tax for 2010-2011 season. We would not be doing it to try to land some free agent.
My sense is how close we are to the playoffs would have little to do with it. If attendance remains bad next year, we'll do it simply to save money.
Your right, we wouldnt be doing it to get in the FA frenzy but it would give us abit of room to potentially land a nice young player, you add Hickson to that possibility and it is somewhat intriguing.
Oh my Blog! http://millertime101.wordpress.com/
Re: Z for Murph?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 22,030
- And1: 4,338
- Joined: May 11, 2002
- Location: Just outside of No where.
-
Re: Z for Murph?
No question this kind of deal is a salary dump, adding Hickson would be a small bit of value for the Pacers as Z would be a one yr player if that much. I think I said this before if in Jan 2010 we're stinking and out of it I can see this go down. Murph for Z, Hickson and $3 mill. Pacers us the cash to buy out Z in Feb and he goes right back to the Cavs. We save a bunch of money on the 2010=11 payroll.