Trade for Second Pick

SacKingZZZ · Post #41 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sat May 24, 2008 7:19 am

So many things go into what makes somebody defensively competent. In that particular comparison there certainly can't be any judgement based on physicality or athleticism. Which is often is the case when judging defensive potential. Vlade is the perfect example of an absolutey non-athletic player being able to excel on the defensive strictly based on effort and savvy.

There have been plenty of players considered bad defenders on good to even great defensive teams. It is possible and is a reason why I don't support choosing defensive potential over talent and skill when choosing who to base a team around. Plenty of GREAT potential defenders go in the 2nd and undrafted in the draft every year.

BMiller52 · Post #42 » by **BMiller52** » Sat May 24, 2008 9:28 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:So many things go into what makes somebody defensively competent. In that particular comparison there certainly can't be any judgement based on physicality or athleticism. Which is often is the case when judging defensive potential. Vlade is the perfect example of an absolutey non-athletic player being able to excel on the defensive strictly based on effort and savvy.

There have been plenty of players considered bad defenders on good to even great defensive teams. It is possible and is a reason why I don't support choosing defensive potential over talent and skill when choosing who to base a team around. Plenty of GREAT potential defenders go in the 2nd and undrafted in the draft every year.

Some of the good perimeter defenders you have a point about but not really the big men:

Duncan #1 pick
Sheed Wallace #4(I think)
KG #5
Mutombo #4
Camby #2
Kenyon Martin #1
Tyson Chandler #1
Biedrins #11
JO #17
Howard #1
Okafor #2
Brand #1
Aldridge #2

Those are just a few of the current guys, this list goes on and on believe me. Yeah there's the occasional guy like Ben Wallace but those are pretty rare too.

Oh and I find it funny that you say Vlade was a good defender but don't give any credit to C-Webb. After C-Webb injured his knee, we went from being the best team on D to like the 24th IN ONE YEAR.

Ballings7 · Post #43 » by **Ballings7** » Sat May 24, 2008 10:15 am

Generally, you don't need much physical ability to play defense, effectively enough.

But, to be relative to a quality/top defender, aside from the required mental area of it, usually a player needs the physical aspect(s), to have that seperation, from the range of average, fair, decent, limited defensive players. Whom of which, can't be relied on as main defenders on a team, but as support guys, who get their lesser areas covered up by the more significant defenders on the team. Assuming there is a certain amount of them there.

Talent/skill also relate to defense whether it's mentally, physically, or a combination of both. Effort is a required aspect of defense, but it is not the majority factor to be an adequate defender in some form or another.

Which is why the often used phrase "defense is about/all about effort", is flawed quite a bit. Whether it's individual defense or team defense.

SKZZZ wrote:There have been plenty of players considered bad defenders on good to even great defensive teams.

Yup. Because they're complemented by the system and the higher-level defensive players on the team. Without the latter, there is exposure, and ineffectiveness as a unit defensively.

SKZZZ wrote:Vlade is the perfect example of an absolutey non-athletic player being able to excel on the defensive strictly based on effort and savvy.

No, not strictly, because he also had good overall size. Without that, he's a different defender and different player.

=============

The thing with us is we have to find that big man, strong defensive presence in the starting line-up some day. With the situation of this team now (compared to in the past) - the various oppurtunities to get that player, are going to come about over the next 2, 3, maybe even 4 years.

Post #44 » by **pillwenney** » Sat May 24, 2008 7:47 pm

SacTown Kings wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Sorry but it's not absurd it is the truth. Take off the goggles. Webber was one of the softest power forwards in the league on defense. I do agree that him and Vlade were a big reason for our success, which is why I brought up that point to Ballings (neither were very good defenders yet we were still competitive). However, it was not because of their defense it was because of their offense, that is how we won. Nobody could stop us with Webber and Divac runiing the Princeton O.

Yes the team was stronger offensively than defensively, but the team's defense as a whole was quite underrated. Really looking at all of the team's defensive stats, we were a pretty strong team defensively despite having guys like Peja and Bibby in our starting 5. You have to give credit to Chris and Vlade for their defensive prowess there. Both were always underrated on that end of the floor.

We hung our hat on our offense, but our defense was quite good, and if it weren't we wouldn't have had as much playoff success.

SacKingZZZ · Post #45 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:47 am

BMiller52 wrote:
SacKingZZZ wrote:So many things go into what makes somebody defensively competent. In that particular comparison there certainly can't be any judgement based on physicality or athleticism. Which is often is the case when judging defensive potential. Vlade is the perfect example of an absolutey non-athletic player being able to excel on the defensive strictly based on effort and savvy.

There have been plenty of players considered bad defenders on good to even great defensive teams. It is possible and is a reason why I don't support choosing defensive potential over talent and skill when choosing who to base a team around. Plenty of GREAT potential defenders go in the 2nd and undrafted in the draft every year.

Some of the good perimeter defenders you have a point about but not really the big men:

Duncan #1 pick
Sheed Wallace #4(I think)
KG #5
Mutombo #4
Camby #2
Kenyon Martin #1
Tyson Chandler #1
Biedrins #11
JO #17
Howard #1
Okafor #2
Brand #1
Aldridge #2

Those are just a few of the current guys, this list goes on and on believe me. Yeah there's the occasional guy like Ben Wallace but those are pretty rare too.

Oh and I find it funny that you say Vlade was a good defender but don't give any credit to C-Webb. After C-Webb injured his knee, we went from being the best team on D to like the 24th IN ONE YEAR.

He doesn't/didn't fall under the type of player I was describing. I was talking about non-athletic players being able to play defense.

SacKingZZZ · Post #46 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:49 am

Ballings7 wrote:Generally, you don't need much physical ability to play defense, effectively enough.

But, to be relative to a quality/top defender, aside from the required mental area of it, usually a player needs the physical aspect(s), to have that seperation, from the range of average, fair, decent, limited defensive players. Whom of which, can't be relied on as main defenders on a team, but as support guys, who get their lesser areas covered up by the more significant defenders on the team. Assuming there is a certain amount of them there.

Talent/skill also relate to defense whether it's mentally, physically, or a combination of both. Effort is a required aspect of defense, but it is not the majority factor to be an adequate defender in some form or another.

Which is why the often used phrase "defense is about/all about effort", is flawed quite a bit. Whether it's individual defense or team defense.

-= original quote snipped =-

No, not strictly, because he also had good overall size. Without that, he's a different defender and different player.

=============

The thing with us is we have to find that big man, strong defensive presence in the starting line-up some day. With the situation of this team now (compared to in the past) - the various oppurtunities to get that player, are going to come about over the next 2, 3, maybe even 4 years.

Sure, but defense can be worked on. It's not like putting more effort on the offensive side of the floor is going to make a player more talented however.

Ballings7 · Post #47 » by **Ballings7** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:24 am

SKZZZ wrote:Sure, but defense can be worked on.

Yes it can be worked on, but it's still not just about effort, because of the mental aspects involved, if somebody doesn't have much physical ability. Where if you do, your defensive ceiling is higher, being the combination of physical and mental areas defensively.

You have to work on where you can get better, and apply that as a consistency.

Some players are more limited than others based on their mental and physical situations.

SKZZZ wrote:It's not like putting more effort on the offensive side of the floor is going to make a player more talented however.

Yes you can, but it depends on their mind and body.

And, you can still become effective and relatively skilled, by working on certain parts of offense, mentally, and action-wise, through work and teaching. Especially if you have a base of physical-related attributes to improve with for specific aspects.

SacKingZZZ · Post #48 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:31 am

Ballings7 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

But you can still become skilled and effective, by working on certain parts of offense. Mentally, and physically, through work and teaching. Especially if you have a base of physical-related attributes to improve with.

You say tamato, I say tomahto. Sure both can be worked on. But I'd take my chances on a player learning to D up than becoming a potential number 1 on offense.

Ballings7 · Post #49 » by **Ballings7** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:37 am

SKZZZ wrote:You say tamato, I say tomahto. Sure both can be worked on. But I'd take my chances on a player learning to D up than becoming a potential number 1 on offense.

Definitely.

But I didn't mean what I said in that extreme of a comparision. So that's not in the context of what I was saying.

What you said relating to defense, is just learning to be enough of a defender, where you're not a liability in some form. On offense, it relates to being a star player.

So with that scencario, you can say the same thing about somebody becoming a lock-down, anhcoring defender, and becoming a jumpshooting threat of some kind.

The comparision of each end of the floor is too far apart with the two kinds of situations you mentioned.

Like I said, it depends on a player's physical and mental situation, for how good they can be.

And you missed my edit before I read the post you just made.

SacTown Kings · Post #50 » by **SacTown Kings** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:45 pm

BMiller52 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Wow way too much hate on Webber. Yeah he didn't block shots like TD or KG exactly, but he was still pretty damn good up until the knee injury. And if you watched the games of the WCF vs LA(I have 2 on my computer I think, and a couple other games with him in them) you'd see he did a decent job defending Shaq at times(better than Vlade actually).

Whoa don't get me wrong. I am not hating on Webber. Webber was my favorite Kings after the Rock, but I gotta call it like I see it. Webber could destroy anyone on the offensive end. I think he was one of the most dominating power forwards of the time, he was right there with Karl Malone and Kemp as far as dominating on offense. But defensively I'm sorry he was below average.

Also the year we went to the WCF we were a pretty good defensive team but it had more to do with our bench players than it did Webber or Divac.

Post #51 » by **ICMTM** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:02 pm

As Kings fans we have to stop falling into the trap of relying on the glory days and put the pressure on the owners to create more memories! Getting Beasley may do that. I think the Miller/Artest deal helps Miami out NOW, and still gives them the option for 2010 to be in free agency. Artest, Marion, Miller, and Wade! That's a very nice lineup right there.

Also we get the star guy we need! We keep the #12 and get another need so we're looking good for the future. If we are taking Blount and Banks in a deal we shouldn't have to give up a pick.

The only thing I can say about Miami is in the future will you be able to get someone better than Beasley?

Post #52 » by **pillwenney** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:42 pm

ICMTM wrote:As Kings fans we have to stop falling into the trap of relying on the glory days and put the pressure on the owners to create more memories! Getting Beasley may do that. I think the Miller/Artest deal helps Miami out NOW, and still gives them the option for 2010 to be in free agency. Artest, Marion, Miller, and Wade! That's a very nice lineup right there.

Also we get the star guy we need! We keep the #12 and get another need so we're looking good for the future. If we are taking Blount and Banks in a deal we shouldn't have to give up a pick.

The only thing I can say about Miami is in the future will you be able to get someone better than Beasley?

Sure it helps them, but I still wouldn't call them a contender. I really don't think this is close. They're just much better off just drafting Beasley.

And they won't be players in FA any time soon if they re-sign Artest and Marion next summer. If they don't re-sign them, then they just traded Beasley for a 1 year shot at throwing this team together with a rookie coach to try to win a title.

Post #53 » by **ICMTM** » Tue May 27, 2008 12:19 am

mitchweber wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Sure it helps them, but I still wouldn't call them a contender. I really don't think this is close. They're just much better off just drafting Beasley.

And they won't be players in FA any time soon if they re-sign Artest and Marion next summer. If they don't re-sign them, then they just traded Beasley for a 1 year shot at throwing this team together with a rookie coach to try to win a title.

By the time Beasley's relevant in this league (to the point where we are calling him a franchise player) Will DWade still be on the same level? Isn't Beasley barely 20, and Wade 26? You are assuming Wade stays in Miami as well. They will need to resign him so I don't really buy that argument.

Wade has taken a BEATING without real help, and Beasley will start and play decent, but do you think Miami will be a contender with Beasley? No! I think Artest + Marion staying far outweight the potential Beasley may bring. Last year's #2 pick will be a very good player, but he didn't come in and set the league on fire. In fact none of the rookies did. Rookies don't do that. Even the greats of Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant didn't come right into the league and tear things up. So unless Beasley will be playing next to a top 50 center and a team that is a playoff contender without him (a la Tim Duncan) kill the thought of Michael Beasley anchoring a team NOW.

If the Heat keep Beasley it's a sign they aren't trying to win now. Artest and Miller aren't that sexy sounding, but rookies don't give you the opportunity to win now. If the Heat aren't winning now why does anyone want to go there or stay there? That team isn't filled with young up and commers. It's filled with role players to support their superstar they already have.

Smills91 · Post #54 » by **Smills91** » Tue May 27, 2008 12:42 am

ICMTM wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

By the time Beasley's relevant in this league (to the point where we are calling him a franchise player) Will DWade still be on the same level? Isn't Beasley barely 20, and Wade 26? You are assuming Wade stays in Miami as well. They will need to resign him so I don't really buy that argument.

Wade has taken a BEATING without real help, and Beasley will start and play decent, but do you think Miami will be a contender with Beasley? No! I think Artest + Marion staying far outweight the potential Beasley may bring. Last year's #2 pick will be a very good player, but he didn't come in and set the league on fire. In fact none of the rookies did. Rookies don't do that. Even the greats of Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant didn't come right into the league and tear things up. So unless Beasley will be playing next to a top 50 center and a team that is a playoff contender without him (a la Tim Duncan) kill the thought of Michael Beasley anchoring a team NOW.

If the Heat keep Beasley it's a sign they aren't trying to win now. Artest and Miller aren't that sexy sounding, but rookies don't give you the opportunity to win now. If the Heat aren't winning now why does anyone want to go there or stay there? That team isn't filled with young up and commers. It's filled with role players to support their superstar they already have.

Do you think the Heat still do your trade if the Bulls take Beasley and leave Rose? I personally think that the Bulls will ultimately opt for Beasley especially after workouts happen. So if Rose is there at #2 could Artest/Miller/#12 nab Rose? I'd hope so.

Post #55 » by **ICMTM** » Tue May 27, 2008 5:42 am

Hypothetically if Beasley goes 1st then I don't know if Miami trades that pick. The way Marion and Wade finish, and the way Rose can get into the lane IMO Rose is a better fit for Miami than Beasley.

Post #56 » by **pillwenney** » Tue May 27, 2008 6:16 am

ICMTM wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

By the time Beasley's relevant in this league (to the point where we are calling him a franchise player) Will DWade still be on the same level? Isn't Beasley barely 20, and Wade 26? You are assuming Wade stays in Miami as well. They will need to resign him so I don't really buy that argument.

Wade has taken a BEATING without real help, and Beasley will start and play decent, but do you think Miami will be a contender with Beasley? No! I think Artest + Marion staying far outweight the potential Beasley may bring. Last year's #2 pick will be a very good player, but he didn't come in and set the league on fire. In fact none of the rookies did. Rookies don't do that. Even the greats of Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant didn't come right into the league and tear things up. So unless Beasley will be playing next to a top 50 center and a team that is a playoff contender without him (a la Tim Duncan) kill the thought of Michael Beasley anchoring a team NOW.

If the Heat keep Beasley it's a sign they aren't trying to win now. Artest and Miller aren't that sexy sounding, but rookies don't give you the opportunity to win now. If the Heat aren't winning now why does anyone want to go there or stay there? That team isn't filled with young up and commers. It's filled with role players to support their superstar they already have.

Wade has taken a beating, but he was still recovering this year. Personally, I think his prime is still to come and that when it does come, it will be for a number of years.

You compared Beasley to Durant, which I think is pretty valid. Durant didn't set the league on fire this year, but he was pretty damn good, and would have been really good next to a D-Wade. He should be able to carry a team in a couple of years at most, and the same basically goes for Beasley. At that point, that will given them 2 years as Beasley works his way into becoming a superstar while D-Wade is one, and they can stay together for years (and the chances of Miami not re-signing Wade are extremely slim--regardless, they should base their plan around that assumption). I would think that they would much rather have that than either a one-year shot with Marion and Artest, or a shot for a few years with that group that probably won't ultimately go anywhere since Brad will decline when his contract is up.

Not to mention the fact that having both Artest and Marion means that one would have to be playing at PF full time, which may not work out as a permanent solution.

Smills91 · Post #57 » by **Smills91** » Tue May 27, 2008 1:24 pm

Marion's played PF for the past 7 years of his career, I think he can handle it seeing that he's been on the all-star game a time or two during that span.

Ballings7 · Post #58 » by **Ballings7** » Tue May 27, 2008 9:04 pm

But he didn't begin playing PF primarily until 04-05.

He was definitely effective at PF, to an extent, which really only worked in the regular season. Where you can get away more with playing small like that. However, the size differential, on defense and rebounding was/is too much past the 1st round. And, during the regular season those issues still showed up on various occasions each season (the most this past season when the Suns still had him), but of course Phoenix wasn't going to adjust.

At most, that's fine as a short-term solution for a season or two, but regardless it won't work out that well in the playoffs.

Effigy · Post #59 » by **Effigy** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:27 pm

In my opinion you guys should give up whatever it takes, including Martin. Try to keep the draft pick. Then deal whatever other valuable players you have left for as good a pick or young talent as you can get. You'll be terrible next year but that will just earn you another lottery pick. If you want to really rebuild it takes years. Look at Portland. It's taken us 5 years, but it was worth it.

SacKingZZZ · Post #60 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:15 am

Bonzi wrote:In my opinion you guys should give up whatever it takes, including Martin. Try to keep the draft pick. Then deal whatever other valuable players you have left for as good a pick or young talent as you can get. You'll be terrible next year but that will just earn you another lottery pick. If you want to really rebuild it takes years. Look at Portland. It's taken us 5 years, but it was worth it.

Well technically we already have about 4 years in the hole. We have drafted very well the last 4 years on a less steep decline and made a couple of very good FA signings (Salmons, Beno?). The problem is that the young talent is still blocked in by other MLE signings and players still taking up roster space. We are pretty decent in the youth department:

Martin, Garcia, Beno (maybe, may depend on who we draft), Hawes, Shelden, our 12th pick this year. And Quincy Douby hasn't even gotten a real chance to show what he's got yet. I think he has the most untapped scoring potential on the whole team. Hopefully measures are taken to insure he gets that opportunity next season.