ImageImageImageImageImage

Channing Frye

Moderators: codydaze, KF10, City of Trees

Butter
General Manager
Posts: 7,959
And1: 57
Joined: Aug 14, 2002
Location: Youth movement, here we come
 

Channing Frye 

Post#1 » by Butter » Sun Jan 6, 2008 8:22 pm

Frye has gotten a rap for being soft. But recently he's been playing really well for the Blazers. As one Blazer regular brought to my attention:

I will point out that Channing Frye is rebounding at a higher rate then Aldridge.

As a matter of fact, people here have wished often for a Millsap type player. Well, Millsap's per48 rebound number is 12.74, while Frye's is 12.04. 7/10 of a rebound more per 48 minutes is not a wide gap.

And frye can play both C and PF. And we know he can shoot and stretch a defense. I question whether portland can do better in a draft or a minor trade then Frye at this point.


I am really starting to like him, but when Oden comes back next year, I thin Frye's minutes are going to dry up. He's not Elton Brand, but would the Kings be interested in him?
KF10
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 23,148
And1: 3,053
Joined: Jul 28, 2006
 

 

Post#2 » by KF10 » Sun Jan 6, 2008 9:48 pm

He simply doesnt fit into the "defensive PF/C" scheme...
User avatar
Rasheed36
Senior
Posts: 648
And1: 2
Joined: Dec 05, 2006

 

Post#3 » by Rasheed36 » Sun Jan 6, 2008 11:56 pm

To weak, soft, small, can't block, has an IQ of 4, and sucks.


Kings pass
User avatar
Yadadimean
Analyst
Posts: 3,406
And1: 76
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Oakland

 

Post#4 » by Yadadimean » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:59 am

^^^I don't know about that. I felt the same way when Portland got him but after watching him play he has been extremely good in his role with the team. He rebounds, blocks shots and stretches defenses with his shooting touch. I dont know why this thread is on the Kings board but I probably wouldn't trade this guy right now. I probably would have about a month ago, but he's fitting in now and he's playing too well to get rid of.
Signature
User avatar
KM44
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,942
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 17, 2007

 

Post#5 » by KM44 » Mon Jan 7, 2008 4:04 am

honestly, I have wanted Frye for a good two years now, and I was furious when the Kings didnt get him from New York. I would love to get Frye for Garcia or Douby + 2nd. I know some people won't like this, but I'm a fan of this guy, he fits into our system.
Ballings7
RealGM
Posts: 22,832
And1: 858
Joined: Jan 04, 2006

 

Post#6 » by Ballings7 » Mon Jan 7, 2008 6:12 am

Frye is in the perfect situation in Portland. Even without Oden this year, and that only increases giganto next year when Oden is back. He's going to stay there. Frye should be happy with the team he can be involved with in the next bunch of years. Doubt he'll go out on his own, unless some money issue comes up.

He's an effective complementary big, in the way of his jumpshot and some offensive post skill, not a solid defender/rebounder (not poor either usually, though), athleticism is around average. No apparent toughness, sometimes has been noticably soft - as a whole an ordinary mentality. Which is fine in the right situation, but that wouldn't be with us.

In general he's a good guy (meaning just as a person, not relating to as a player there).

Overall, he isn't what we need or should want at PF on this team for the extended future next to Hawes. I'd lean to him not developing into what is needed for us at PF, too. He has to significantly display some things in the rebounding and defensive departments. Aside from probably not having that type of game and betterment, Frye being behind Aldridge and Oden doesn't favor for that either.

It'd be another unbalanced and uncomplementing PF/C combo. Just wouldn't be enough there between Hawes/Frye, from what's needed and where this team has been lacking up front for some years now. As well as to not have limitations in the playoffs, against the teams who will be able to exploit the starting big men's lesser areas.

Portland has no need for Garcia or Douby, really.
Smills91
Banned User
Posts: 23,364
And1: 2
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Location: Ronald Reagan is my political hero.

 

Post#7 » by Smills91 » Mon Jan 7, 2008 5:34 pm

I like Frye and think he can be a very valuable big in the same capacity that Songaila was, but perhaps even better. With that said, I dunno how much I'd really give up for him...IMO it'd fall, VALUE WISE somewhere between Douby and Garcia. I think douby isn't enough and Garcia is too much. But somewhere in between there like Douby + 2nd rounder or two or Garcia for Frye + Jack or Rodriguez or something along those lines.
User avatar
KM44
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,942
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 17, 2007

 

Post#8 » by KM44 » Tue Jan 8, 2008 2:20 am

overall, I think that we look too much for big dumb centers that can bang bodies more than play basketball. We have a system the Frye fits into, Golden State would be a different story, but for us, Frye would be perfect.

As for garcia and douby, i believe he is worth garcia straight up. that would be a good trade for both teams. I know Portalnd doesnt NEED Garcia, but he would fit into their young nucleus of hard-working youngsters
Ballings7
RealGM
Posts: 22,832
And1: 858
Joined: Jan 04, 2006

 

Post#9 » by Ballings7 » Tue Jan 8, 2008 6:47 am

Next to Hawes for the next bunch of years? Frye is definitely not perfect at all. Our interior defense and mobility there, would be at a level that's just not enough. Certainly not poor, but not at a standard of significance from either player, and as a tandem.

Now, Frye as a back-up? Sure, Frye would be nice off the bench. I'm fine with him in that role. Like Smills said.

Really don't see Frye going from Portland, though. The situation from the team and himself stand-point, is too ideal for them.

overall, I think that we look too much for big dumb centers that can bang bodies more than play basketball.


I don't know if you just mean bigs in general about that, but I don't think anybody is really "dumb" for who we need and will be looking at, next to Hawes later on. Being a big man in the form of a PF/PF-type that complements Hawes, making for a balanced starting PF/C combo for the future.
ilovenewyork
Junior
Posts: 261
And1: 29
Joined: May 20, 2003
Contact:

 

Post#10 » by ilovenewyork » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:48 am

As a knicks fan I know all about channing, he's a good ball player with the right team and right now portland is the right team. He's soft in that he'll settle for the jumper too often and gets abused in the paint by bigger front court players. with that said he's got a great upside and with a sstem like the kings or portland will become a decent player. The way I see frye is kind of like a brad miller type of player.
SacKingZZZ
RealGM
Posts: 23,927
And1: 971
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."

 

Post#11 » by SacKingZZZ » Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:09 am

Brad Miller type maybe. Can he see the floor like Brad though? If he can't he's more like Mark Blount than Brad Miller.

I still like him though. I think having two bigs that can shoot and are legit 7 footers are a major mismatch waiting to happen.
Ballings7
RealGM
Posts: 22,832
And1: 858
Joined: Jan 04, 2006

 

Post#12 » by Ballings7 » Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:46 am

SKZZZ wrote:I think having two bigs that can shoot and are legit 7 footers are a major mismatch waiting to happen.


If in the case of starting, I'm curious in what you're thinking is, for what amount of time would tie into that. Because I just don't understand settling for and having a Hawes/Frye starting big man tandem for the long-term future.

For the short-term I think that'd be a fine scenario to go with, though.

iloveny wrote:As a knicks fan I know all about channing, he's a good ball player with the right team and right now portland is the right team.


Yes. Portland is one of the ideal situations for Frye. I think he'll stay there for awhile.
The Playoffs don't care about your Analytics

Return to Sacramento Kings