Villanueva

S.I.C. GM · Post #1 » by **S.I.C. GM** » Mon May 11, 2009 2:44 pm

Hey just took a look at this article.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/bucks/44625347.html

I wonder how much he is going to be asking.

I would put him next to Lopez. He is not a great defender but I love this guy's energy.

amk482 · Post #2 » by **amk482** » Mon May 11, 2009 2:48 pm

I like CV as well but not sure he is the type of player the nets are looking for. He has a solid low post mae, but i think he is more perimter oriented than what we are looking for. As thorn said, we Need a "Moose". Would love to CV as a 6th man however, but he probbaly wants to start, which means starters $.

NetsForce · Post #3 » by **NetsForce** » Mon May 11, 2009 3:06 pm

The "Moose" thing is getting hella played out. But AMK is right in that Villanueva doesn't really give the Nets a dimension that they don't have... I personally want to scrap running the dribble-drive motion offense every freaking play and run something more traditional, with a more traditional power forward...

I think he's going to be looking for more than the MLE, I don't know if anyone will give it to him though... If Boozer opts in as funny as it may sound Villanueva may be alongside Millsap be the best power forward option in the 2009 free agent class.

A team like Detroit could certainly use him, as could Memphis, I don't know if he's the type of power forward they want though...

Preludepunk27 · Post #4 » by **Preludepunk27** » Mon May 11, 2009 3:28 pm

I'd be fine with Charlie. He's young, athletic, has a decent jumper. He's not my first choice by any means and I'd probably be mad at Thorn and Kiki if we missed out on some other players I felt we could sign above Charlie, but honestly, as a last option, I would be ok with him.

My problem is, I view Charlie as a 6/7 man on a good team, and only a starting PF on a bad team (see: Bucks).

amk482 · Post #5 » by **amk482** » Mon May 11, 2009 3:34 pm

I agree with Prelude, dont see CV as a starter on a good team. Seems to me that he would be an ideal fit as an instant offense type of guy on a good team.

vincecarter4pres · Post #6 » by **vincecarter4pres** » Tue May 12, 2009 1:22 am

He's a chucker that plays outside/in and only rebounds well when he's up for a contract or he's worried his minutes are gong to be cut back. He plays really suspect defense and has a low BBIQ, along with a low overall IQ, not a smart dude. He's like a Tim Thomas with a slightly better attitude.
No thanks.

RoyalT23 · Post #7 » by **RoyalT23** » Tue May 12, 2009 2:30 am

chucker!!!!!

SteveNets15 · Post #8 » by **SteveNets15** » Tue May 12, 2009 7:54 pm

If Frank stays with the dribble-drive then he fits in perfect.I'd rather have him at the pf then Yi.Al harrington would fit right in to.I don't want either but with this system these the are the kind of guys we need.I want Milsap but Utah ain't letting him go.

Preludepunk27 · Post #9 » by **Preludepunk27** » Tue May 12, 2009 8:29 pm

^^^ If I had to chose between Al Harrington and Charlie V, I'd first blow my brains out, then just go trade for Hakeen Warrick instead.

SteveNets15 · Post #10 » by **SteveNets15** » Tue May 12, 2009 10:23 pm

^^^^lol so your telling me Al the chucker Harrington doesn't put us in the ECF next year.
Devin
CDR
VC
AL HARR
brook

How do you stop that lineup with the dribble-drive offense.We don't play defense anyway.This started as a joke but now it got me thinking.With Al Harr at the pf,that leaves the paint wide open for Brook cuz if they give Al an open look he'll knock down every shot Yi missed this year.lol

Naaaaaaaaa i still rather have Milsap.Offense can only take you so far.And i would never pay i guy like Harrington.I would love to have Warrick to since he's a tuff kid that has developed nicely and we should've drafted him to run the floor with Kidd anyway.Ok i'm done now.

halfHAVOC · Post #11 » by **halfHAVOC** » Wed May 13, 2009 9:43 pm

tsp00n · Post #12 » by **tsp00n** » Wed May 13, 2009 10:57 pm

i've been praising cv... and i've always wanted him to play for the nets... he would be a great piece that can play both the 3 and the 4 for the nets, i thought we should;ve recieved cv instead of yi in the deal last year... now he's developing more and more and it might be to late... but cv in a lineup with harris, lopez and carter???? insane...

Preludepunk27 · Post #13 » by **Preludepunk27** » Wed May 13, 2009 11:10 pm

My main concern with him was never really his offense. He really doesn't play that much defense. I just feel management is gonna attempt to bring in a starter caliber 3 and a backup true PG first, then if we bring in another vet 4, he's gonna be a physical defensive minded guy that isn't worthless on offense either. Of course I could totally be wrong. Lets just go get Drew Gooden and call it the day.

tsp00n · Post #14 » by **tsp00n** » Wed May 13, 2009 11:23 pm

Preludepunk27 wrote:My main concern with him was never really his offense. He really doesn't play that much defense. I just feel management is gonna attempt to bring in a starter caliber 3 and a backup true PG first, then if we bring in another vet 4, he's gonna be a physical defensive minded guy that isn't worthless on offense either. Of course I could totally be wrong. Lets just go get Drew Gooden and call it the day.

whats wront with keyon dooling??? and i believe vc would be more effective at the 3... then the 2

Preludepunk27 · Post #15 » by **Preludepunk27** » Thu May 14, 2009 3:23 am

Don't get me wrong I love Keyon Dooling. But fans (I do it all the time) tend to fall in love with their players which distorts things. Dooling played the 2 guard above average on a rather mediocre team. (Before anyone says "but we exceeded expectations," we still were not a playoff team. That translates into mediocre in my book. Hell even being an 8 seed and getting swept by the cavs means we're a mediocre team because we could not compete with the top tier teams in the league.) Now, if we were able to land a starting caliber 2 or 3, how "above average" would our 2nd unit be with Dooling and Hayes running the show? Yes dooling plays well with the first team, but our bench was dreadful when it was only Hayes on the 2nd unit. If we added a guy of similar caliber and just made him part of the 2nd unit, well I'd be fine with that, but we need a complete team from top to bottom and my first two points would be to get a starter caliber 2/3 (not a 1/2 like Dooling) and a back up PG.

And vince at the 3? I'm fine with it, but elaborate as to why would you think he would be more effective at the 3? He's proven he can play the 2 on offense for a decade and on defense 9 times out of 10 he guards the 3 on the court, so I don't really understand the comment.

tsp00n · Post #16 » by **tsp00n** » Thu May 14, 2009 4:54 am

i'm not sure i understand how you got to that conclusion. i remember our bench outplaying the starting 5 many times... not to mention dooling and hayes usually took care of buisness i feel like we have a good bench... probably the best back up point the nets have had since???? i dont know you tell me... what was the last back pg we had better then dooling? if anything i believe out bench needs a experinced energetic big man... la birdman

Preludepunk27 · Post #17 » by **Preludepunk27** » Thu May 14, 2009 12:55 pm

If we upgrade him to the starting line up though...then what do we have? A bench with no depth? It's not always the best thing to make a guy a starter. Think about it though. You're telling me we have a great 2nd unit last year. How miserable will they be if Jarvis is the only consistant guy on the 2nd unit. CDR played great at the end of the year, but he's still young and he's not gonna show up every night. I'll post later, i have a meeting lol.

Preludepunk27 · Post #18 » by **Preludepunk27** » Thu May 14, 2009 4:14 pm

^^^ To add on now I'm out of my meeting (if you're in school...never leave by the way lol), who are we royally screwing over in the front court so we could get this big man? Right now we have Lopez, Yi, Anderson, Williams, Boone, and Najera. Granted those aren't AMAZING names but we more young front court players than any other team in the league. Unless we do something drastic this offseason (doubt it), even if we improved our roster in a few ways, we're likely a 2nd round out AT BEST. Would I rather upgrade our 3 and backup PG spot before adding another big man to an already clogged front court? Most definitely in my opinion. I'm just trying to get across that the ONLY way we add a guy to our frontcourt this offseason is if we move some of those guys and get a difference maker back. I know it's a long offseason so a lot can happen, but management is high on guys in our front court so I can't see them doing anything to hinder that unless makes us a contender.

And again, Dooling is a solid player who did very well for us last year, but unless we find a guy who can fill in consistently on the 2nd unit, I want him nowhere near a permanent position in the starting line up.

S.I.C. GM · Post #19 » by **S.I.C. GM** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:47 pm

Prelude, I understand what you are saying.

If we dont get a back up PG that can be as affective as Dooling, there is no reason for him to start.

If we do, I say he starts.

Another thing is why do people think he has to start as SG. I would rather scratch him off as PG or put the G tag next to him and Harris. I would rather dooling be PG and have harris play SG.

IMO Dooling would do a better job at making sure everyone gets their touches with harris, VC and Lopez of course getting the most. Harris will have the ball most of the time. Defensively, dooling would do what Harris didnt do last year, spark the Defense by pressuring the ball handler.

Dooling and Harris are a good combo. As long as Thorn gets a back up PG,I am not worried about the banch that much because Hayes will be back and CDR will improve. Most likely if we dont get the #1 pick, we will be drafting a PG, SG or SF. So whoever we draft will help the bench.

tsp00n · Post #20 » by **tsp00n** » Thu May 14, 2009 7:51 pm

my thing is... why do you feel the need to put dooling in the 1st unit? i believe he's fine where he's at... he brings energy off the bench... if ANYTHING, i believe cdr should start at the 2 vince at the 3, if for whatever reason villanueva would be on hand, put him at the 4... as far as your big men... i would get rid of najera, swill, simmons and or hassel... i dont see the point in a 3rd point guard... when we have a versatile player that could use that playing time like cdr... who can play 1,2 and 3...
why waste another roster spot on a pg?... am i making sense here?