Ballings7 wrote:mitch wrote:But that's missing my point--everybody right now is a value piece. When you don't have a clear-cut franchise player, your roster is never set until you are legitimately contending.
I'm just talking about one general area of the team.
I don't see us trading Kevin, unless some great deal comes along. Who really knows if that happens. So, basically, I think Kevin's here to stay for awhile.
Hence, why all the talk about "fit", next to Kevin, in setting up the wings. That's going to have to be done sooner, or later, whether it's Kevin and one guy, then another, and then maybe even another. But, regardless of who, and possibly a player or two who does not fit, in between the good fit players - the guy who's there when we're good and beginning to make the playoffs (maybe not the 1st time), has to complement Kevin with notability. Of course, that guy possessing; good defense (w/ some range in who he can guard), 3PT shooting, and possibly some form of facilitating. While I think all three should be sought for in that player, the passing skill wouldn't be mandatory for me, unless we had a PG who isn't that skilled running a team.
Now, if we don't go with that, then were simply ignoring a specific team aspect which is lacking compatability. A change is then required to get better, and thus more balanced.
The basic idea and situation is there, just needs to be set with somebody when the team is set. Which I see no reason why that won't happen down the line.
Gallinari is what he is for us.
And, I'm not sure if you fully understood me on something earlier - when I mentioned taking a player like Bruce Bowen next to Kevin, over somebody like Gallinari? That wasn't in relation to a draft pick or trade, it just meant in some time. Whether Gallinari's there (and trade for value sometime), or an average journeyman is there, the good defender/3PT shooter/maybe more, is the guy who eventually would come in and be the guy next to Kevin.
All this Gallinari stuff is probably moot anyway, because of where he's always been projected - ahead of us. I just pointed it out because Amick (or somebody) mentioned him now, so it surprised me and brought back my original position on him.
mitch wrote:But my issue is that if somebody is not the perfect fit, then it's just not that important to draft them just because they're a better fit. You think that Orlando would trade Hedo for Haslem just because they have a need for a guy like Haslem? Of course not. No sane person would. If that is essentially how Geoff views Arthur and Gallinari, I would sure hope that he would pick Gallinari.
I think it depends on each situation.
With Hedo and Haslem, no, I don't think you don't do that trade.
With drafting Arthur/Gallinari? It's good fit, significant team improvement vs. pure value... I'll take Arthur because he's the better prospect and will improve the team and front-court well. Aside from what's already on the team, it's only a matter of time before I can get more value, too. I don't think Gallinari's "value" outweighs Arthur's talent and fit for the team, long-term.
I'd disagree with Geoff or anybody there in taking Gallinari over Arthur for us. Simple as that.
mitch wrote:Now of course I'm saying "if" because I really don't know at all that he sees them that way. I don't see Arthur in that way, but I also know that Geoff is a much, much more qualified judge of talent than anybody here. That's why I will trust him with any decision he makes, regardless of how it appears to fit with our franchise.
Okay.