RealGM

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breakin ... 92862.html

Would love to bring him back

I wouldn't. He would dribble the friggen shotclock out when we had him here before. He would bring quickness and defensive intensity though, but Banks already does that.

Dooling is a good back-up. But that's it.. a back-up. We need a starting pg, period. Banks is a back-up, and as of now Chalmers is a back-up until proven other wise, as is Jason Williams at this point of his career. Not sure who we can get, but we need to do something...

Banks is a better fit.

I think the point to a guy like Dooling is that he'd be a stop gap - just a guy you can put out there and not lose too much in terms of quality. And let's face it, compared to what we were able to put on the floor for most of last year, he's a significant upgrade.

if the price is right, get both he and Kwame Brown and call it an offseason...

maybe he was on Wade's wishlist, from the idyllic rookie season

DBurks2818 wrote:Banks is a better fit.

Isnt Banks a worse shooter?

SmushedPennies wrote:

DBurks2818 wrote:Banks is a better fit.

Isnt Banks a worse shooter?

I think Banks is a better shooter (at least spotting up) but I don't really know. They're both somewhat streaky, but Dooling definitely moreso. Banks fit like a glove in Miami before he got injured. Here's their stats, even though the sample size is obviously smaller for Banks:

Banks:
21.6 MPG
51.2% FGs
40.5% 3PT FGs
78.9 FT%
9.5 PPG
2.1 RPG
3.0 APG
0.5 SPG
1.75 TOPG

Dooling:
18.5 MPG
46.8% FGs
33.8% 3PT FGs
84.5 FT%
8.1 PPG
1.4 RPG
1.8 APG
0.5 SPG
0.85 TOPG

Banks also has better career shooting numbers (except slightly worse FT shooting, like 2%), as well as better rebounding, assist, and steal numbers for his career.

Dooling takes slightly better care of the ball and has a slightly higher career scoring average.

Finally, considering that Dooling will likely ask for a salary similar to Banks anyway (3 years, 12-13 mil), why not just stay with Banks unless you can trade him for an upgrade at center? And even if he's cheaper, how is he a better value than Chalmers (who seems to have Rondo-like potential)?

Can Lue still play basketball?

No to dooling! Id rather have banks in the starting lineup and if we are signing dooling as a reserve, i would say no because it would take minutes away from Chalmers.Unless we are talking about Daniel Gibson,David West,Luke Ridnour or a decent starting pg, i say no. This FA class really sucks.

If we can get him on a cheap two year deal you take him, PERIOD. I like Dools.

Can back up both guard posistions. Kills two birds with one stone. I thought he'd be too expensive again, but maybe he'll give a hometown discount this time around.

NO!

He's a blackhole on offense. --- Correction he IS the blackhole!

He gets the ball, dribbles it for 23 secs and then notices the shot clock winding down, and launches an ill advised shot to beat the shot clock.

ugh!

Again, what does he bring that Banks doesn't? Other than *possibly* having a *slightly* cheaper price tag.

I'm in the business is bringing in quality depth. Dools is quality depth. And he's only 28.

Yes Banks and Dooling is somewhat redundant in terms of their skillset. Neither are point guards, but moreso just 'ball handlers'. But it's still quality depth.

I see Mario Chalmers starting by the all-star break anyway, so one of them will probably end up splitting minutes at the two with D.Cook.

I'm all for depth at center and a real, starting quality PG. I'm just against having more combo guard depth. Maybe the team agrees with you though.

I don't want Dooling playing SG because Wade is the primary player there. I want Cook getting the burn behind Wade as well. So that pretty much counts him out of the SG spot, for me at least. Then at PG he pretty much will do the same things as Banks. I'd want Chalmers, who could be the starter pretty soon or by the end of the year, getting the backup time instead of a veteran PG that won't lead our team anywhere.

There's a thing called injuries that are bound to happen, most certainly with this team in particular. Consider that as well.

DBurks2818 wrote:Again, what does he bring that Banks doesn't? Other than *possibly* having a *slightly* cheaper price tag.

Dooling can defend PGs and SGs well, while Banks lacks the necessary length to defend SGs. And Riles is OBSESSED with having that hybrid defender off the bench at PG to help Wade defensively.

Consider that we've had: Dooling in 2004-05 in that role, Payton from 2005-07 in that role, and Smush signed to play that role in 2007-08. Each had enough height and length from the PG position to take Wade's defensive assignment (often as the "chaser" thru screens) to imporve our perimeter D and to conserve Wade's energy for some needed late-game heroics. Wade didn't have that last year because the Smush signing backfired. Wade ended up shooting something like 30% in the last 5 minutes of close games last year, and of course our perimeter D was awful. That's why we're interested - it's all about what type of role you can fill, and how it complements Wade.

But yeah, I don't care for Dooling either. Same reasons everyone else listed above.

BUT you did ask what he brings that Banks doesn't, and that's precisely it. He can defend Wade's man, Banks lacks the hieght/length to do so . That's why Riley (and perhaps even Wade) are interested.