Addition of a PG

DaBassSource · Post #21 » by **DaBassSource** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:34 pm

CarolinaCash wrote:I basically wanted to know if you guys think we mainly have the other parts on our team to get us to the next level once our point guard matures and improves. I just wanted to know if an elite point guard solves most of our problems or do we need a new coach, big man, etc.

If we had Nash/Kidd/Paul we would be in the playoffs also if we had Duncan/KG/Howard we would also be in the playoffs... Once there I think an Elite big man would take us further....As far as making the play-offs we are not far away either way....

Raymond Felton · Post #22 » by **Raymond Felton** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:38 pm

people on these boards ride Felton to much. i'll leave it at that.

W_HAMILTON · Post #23 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:41 pm

If we had one of those PGs you mentioned, we would be much better than we are now.

If we had one of the younger ones, they would fit right in with our core, and I would be completely satisfied with the team we have now, and confident in its ability to compete at a high level for at least the next half-decade. We would only need to make minor adjustments to our team as we went along, mainly by upgrading the bench with more talented players/veterans and probably coaching.

Right now, we have three legitimate players that could be in the starting lineup of a very good team (Okafor/Wallace/Richardson), and with one of those PGs, we'd have four.

August Us Seazr · Post #24 » by **August Us Seazr** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:15 pm

Let me add another thought to the POINT GUARD talk. We have two PGs who metriculated at Carolina. They have Phil Ford to work with them. If he has been working with them, it hasn't really shown up to last week. Frankly, I was elated at the general trend of our coaching staff as it was named. But for the most part, this season has been a real DUD. In fact, I really feel the same way about Coach Mokeski. But Mokeski has only had Okafor and rookies to work with. It seems to me that when the record went south of .500 that Ford should have doubled down with Felton, in an effort to right the ship. (And maybe the other assistants should have done the same with their charges!)

And then, IF Raymond is supposed to be the point guard, WHY does he even get a sniff at shooting guard? :crazy:

Coach V needs to wear a bag on his head every time he inserts Ray in as the SG. We have PEOPLE for that! (J-Rich and Carroll, both who are getting paid very handsomely to play that very position). Vincent, its time to get real, or get gone!

And all you Cats fans Claw ON!

W_HAMILTON · Post #25 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:37 pm

Because we've been a better team since he's started at SG and McInnis has moved into the starting lineup?

NBA.com says McInnis has started 10 games, winning 4 of them. That means the record with him in the starting lineup is 4-6. That's almost a .500 record, and considering how rare wins were early in the year, I'm sure Vincent doesn't want to mess up a good thing.

fluffernutter · Post #26 » by **fluffernutter** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:39 pm

W_HAMILTON wrote:Because we've been a better team since he's started at SG and McInnis has moved into the starting lineup?

NBA.com says McInnis has started 10 games, winning 4 of them. That means the record with him in the starting lineup is 4-6. That's almost a .500 record, and considering how rare wins were early in the year, I'm sure Vincent doesn't want to mess up a good thing.

This is pretty good sarcasm. I like.

W_HAMILTON · Post #27 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:50 pm

Too bad it's not.

For a coach that couldn't get anything to work earlier in the season, with everyone disappointing and his team putting up loss after loss...seeing as how we've competed lately, I'm sure he doesn't want to mess up a good thing.

We're a better team since McInnis has moved into the starting lineup, period. Is it because of him? Probably not. But no one knows the real reason, and rather that screw it up, I'm sure Vincent is content to keep the lineup as is and ride it out as long as he can.

fluffernutter · Post #28 » by **fluffernutter** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:01 am

W_HAMILTON wrote:Too bad it's not.

For a coach that couldn't get anything to work earlier in the season, with everyone disappointing and his team putting up loss after loss...seeing as how we've competed lately, I'm sure he doesn't want to mess up a good thing.

We're a better team since McInnis has moved into the starting lineup, period. Is it because of him? Probably not. But no one knows the real reason, and rather that screw it up, I'm sure Vincent is content to keep the lineup as is and ride it out as long as he can.

As a straight man, you have no equal.

Excellent stuff!

W_HAMILTON · Post #29 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:14 am

I'm glad you think so, because when I post something, the first thing I look for is your seal of excellence!

And I finally got it!

I'm validated!

fluffernutter · Post #30 » by **fluffernutter** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:23 am

W_HAMILTON wrote:I'm glad you think so, because when I post something, the first thing I look for is your seal of excellence!

And I finally got it!

I'm validated!

I'm in no position to validate something of such high quality. Consider me a fan, nothing more, nothing less!

A BIG fan!

In fact, I've added a quote from you to my signature, and I do it proudly!

Post #31 » by **BigSlam** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:56 am

W_HAMILTON wrote:If we had one of those PGs you mentioned, we would be much better than we are now.

If we had one of the younger ones, they would fit right in with our core, and I would be completely satisfied with the team we have now, and confident in its ability to compete at a high level for at least the next half-decade. We would only need to make minor adjustments to our team as we went along, mainly by upgrading the bench with more talented players/veterans and probably coaching.

Right now, we have three legitimate players that could be in the starting lineup of a very good team (Okafor/Wallace/Richardson), and with one of those PGs, we'd have four.

If we had one of those PG's though, plus the three other players you mention, how would we afford them all let alone upgrade the bench at the same time?

fluffernutter · Post #32 » by **fluffernutter** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:20 am

Signature check...

YUP looks like it works!

W_HAMILTON · Post #33 » by **W_HAMILTON** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:54 am

New Orleans already has three 10m+/year salaries on the book not counting Paul, so if we couldn't afford him, I guess that's a good thing since I'm sure NO can't afford him either

And fluff, if you have me in your sig, it's only fair I repay the favor. Can you post one of those cool pink, female Japanese cartoon characters, preferably with some of your trademark poetry that I can sport in my sig?

fluffernutter · Post #34 » by **fluffernutter** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:44 pm

W_HAMILTON wrote:New Orleans already has three 10m+/year salaries on the book not counting Paul, so if we couldn't afford him, I guess that's a good thing since I'm sure NO can't afford him either

And fluff, if you have me in your sig, it's only fair I repay the favor. Can you post one of those cool pink, female Japanese cartoon characters, preferably with some of your trademark poetry that I can sport in my sig?

I think this is sufficiently horrific:

As for poetry.... well, I'm a bit busy this morning. Perhaps later this afternoon. You can't just crank that stuff out, man.

spectre_ · Post #35 » by **spectre_** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:00 pm

W_HAMILTON wrote:New Orleans already has three 10m+/year salaries on the book not counting Paul, so if we couldn't afford him, I guess that's a good thing since I'm sure NO can't afford him either.

It'll be very interesting to watch the moves they make right before the deadline and thru next year. If they're smart they'll start working now to have a bench good enough to contend in 2009 when Paul's salary kicks in...if they wait until '09 they're going to be severely handicapped. As most know a team can go over the cap in re-signing players...not so easy when they're FAs.

Figuring Paul will get DHoward money, NOLA is going to be right above the cap at around 63 million (give or take) with 8 players. Lucky for them 5 are generally starters, so that leaves them the MLE (6 million), the LLE (I think around 2 or 3 million) and of course vet min contracts.

To be able to contend they'll have to be flirting with the luxury limit (72 million +/-) AND all this corresponds with Shinn's first year in his new contract with the city to opt out if the attendence benchmarks aren't set.

Personally I think his new contract was in part thinking ahead about Paul's upcoming payday...and he's going to bolt in order to not go bankrupt paying the team's salary.