Better sg fit hughes/Salmons or Iverson

truthbtold21 · Post #1 » by **truthbtold21** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 7:07 pm

A question that we should think about,who would be a better fit. All could contribute in their own different way I myself would be in favor of Iversn or hughes both played under larry brown before, also if we can ride it out with raja this year AI becomes a free agent next summer he could be our go to guy we have been looking for thoughts bobcats fans.

coordinator0 · Post #2 » by **coordinator0** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 7:48 pm

No to Iverson. I have the unfortunate luck to watch him every game with th Pistons and I can tell you that he is NOT a team player. He does make spectacular plays from time to time but he makes a lot more bad plays at this point in his career. He's pretty much become a black-hole at the end of games, especially if the Pistons are down.

I would want Salmons over Hughes because he actually has good size, something our team is lacking. He's also on a cheaper contact which is always a good thing (unless he want's a raise lol).

Post #3 » by **BigSlam** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 7:49 pm

Maybe you can edit your post truthbtold21 and make it a poll?

truthbtold21 · Post #4 » by **truthbtold21** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:10 pm

how do i do that bigslam?

Post #5 » by **Paydro70** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:12 pm

Is this a joke? Allen Iverson is an incredible basketball player, he would immediately be our best player, he and Larry Brown love each other, and I'm supposed to consider Larry Hughes or John Salmons over him? What would we even be offering? This entire thread confuses me.

Dexmor · Post #6 » by **Dexmor** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:13 pm

Hughes and here is why. Iverson has no motivation to sign with us at this point in his career. He is 32 or 33 so he is gonna want to go to a contender. Plus at that age he will be declining very soon and it's not like he will make a great pg. At sg if he losses a little bit of that quickness he is just a good combo guard off the bench. If it was 1 year I would say Iverson but because were rebuilding he makes absolutely no sence to get over Hughes or Salmons.

Hughes over Salmons because while Salmons is a 20 point scorer it's pretty much only because nobody else there can score right now and with Kevin Martin back he is not doing as well. He said it's up to the coaching staff. Him and Brown have clashing potential.

Hughes would thrive in a go to role. He would be our go to guy and he would absolutely love it. He would also do better then both in a uptempo system as he is the most athletic. He would be a highlight reel with him running with DJ and taking so many shots. The more shots he gets the better he is. He struggled with Lebron playing totally off the ball but thrived when he was aloud to create on the Wizards. He is not far removed from that.
He is the best defensively out of the 3 as well and if we keep Wallace with him and Mek we could have a real good defensive team.

coordinator0 · Post #7 » by **coordinator0** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:24 pm

You make good points Dexmor. My main reason for wanting Salmons over Hughes is because Hughes hasn't done much over the past fey years, but if he could get anywhere near his playing days in Washington I'd take him in a heartbeat. I also like his defense, but for now I'll say Salmons would be better for our team.

Post #8 » by **BigSlam** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:24 pm

truthbtold21 wrote:how do i do that bigslam?

I did it for you. You can select "add poll" to your posts and create any poll you want.

Dexmor · Post #9 » by **Dexmor** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:28 pm

I just realized the question was better fit. Hughes is a great fit and who I would rather have but for now Iverson is the best fit possibly out of all the sg's in the league and here is why

The way Iverson plays he draws so much attention guys come out to help on him guys get easy offensive rebounds and put backs. Enter Wallace and Mek who score on garbadge points and aren't really creators.
All Iverson wants to do is shoot, all DJ and Diaw want to do is pass and Mek loves playing D and rebounding and tapping the ball out and has problems with sometimes not shooting lot and not being aggresive offensively. Wallace loves put backs loves gambling and do all the dirty work and when you have Iverson you need guys like Mek and Crash. They are the perfect teammates for guys like Iverson, the former nba player turned blogger Gilbert Arenas and the old Stephon Marbury or Kobe when he was young. Any player that has lower value then he should because he is selfish like Zack Randolph or Allen Iverson would thrive on our squad.

I love the Lakers and Cats and if Iverson went to LA for the midlevel I would be unsure how I felt about it. If he came here for the midlevel I would love it.
I hope we land Marbury but I think there gonna hold onto him til the deadline and trade his contract.

e4Nf6 · Post #10 » by **e4Nf6** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:46 pm

I don't understand the obsession with Hughes, he's had a SLIGHT uptick this year but has been horrible every year since his big year with the Wizards. Hughes does well to shoot 40% most of the time. And he is 30 years old, a little late to blossom as the "main option,"

I just checked and he hasn't shot more than 40% in a season since the year with Washington. We already have a guy to do that, and Ray's defense/passing/ball handling are all far superior to Hughes.

Liver_Pooty · Post #11 » by **Liver_Pooty** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 8:50 pm

Fully agree with the above post.

This team has enough mediocre to slightly above average players. If we can make a trade and improve our bench thats great. Hell, If we can make a trade and improve the team at all thats great, but making a trade just to make a trade is dumb, and thats what landed us Mohammeds contract in the first place. If its for the betterment of the franchise to wait it out this season and see how the ping pong balls fly thats fine.

Dexmor · Post #12 » by **Dexmor** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 9:32 pm

Well nobody said make a trade to make a trade. Getting one of those sg's is a trade that makes sence. Now trading Crash would be a dumb trade just to make a trade because he is a top 10 sf and has the value of a solid bench player.

Larry Hughes is shooting a low % yes and any 40% shooter is shooting pretty bad unless there rookies like DJ. But Larry Hughes is 30 which means he did not all of a sudden get old, he did not suffer from some serious injury he has been in bad situations.
You looked up the stats but did you watch him on the Cavs? They made him play pg which he begged to not do and when he wasn't playing pg they made him play the role of spot up shooter which he is not.

With the Bulls it's no mystery why his %'s are down because he told us. He is a rythem player and he is not getting enough minutes.
When he was aloud to play his game on Washington look what he did. That is the reason why he hasn't played well since Washington.

you can't just look at the stats.

As a Bobcat not only would he not have to play pg he would be starting with plenty of minutes and he would get in great rythem because he would be the main man for a while.
He is not the ideal 1st option he is a better 2nd or 3rd if your deep but our leading scorer averages 16 points, how much of a joke is that? You don't think he would be a good main man for us?

If we can get him without giving up one of the main 4 we have a 20 point game scorer and 4 13-15 point a game scorers in the starting lineup. That's awesome.

ohara · Post #13 » by **ohara** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 9:38 pm

Salmons

Post #14 » by **BigSlam** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 9:45 pm

I think Hughes would be the easiest/cheapest to get, fits a role we need filled and has that big, juicy expiring contract if all else fails.

Dexmor · Post #15 » by **Dexmor** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 9:49 pm

What about this thread confuses you? He didn't say what can we give for AI or anything he just asked who fits this system best.
My answer is AI but he is old so I would want Hughes.
What about this post don't you understand? It's not even a trade thread because he didn't say what do we have to give up to make it work it's hypothetical.

Post #16 » by **BigSlam** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 9:53 pm

Dexmor wrote:What about this thread confuses you? He didn't say what can we give for AI or anything he just asked who fits this system best.
My answer is AI but he is old so I would want Hughes.
What about this post don't you understand? It's not even a trade thread because he didn't say what do we have to give up to make it work it's hypothetical.

Simmer down there little fella!! All these posts are making your head spin!!

Show me where, any where, in truthbtold21's post where it mentions the word system.

It says "best fit".

So, IMO, Hughes is the best fit because we would have to give up the least to get him, he would play a role that we need, and he is on an expensive, but short, contract so it offers cap space.

Are you ok with understanding that?

Dexmor · Post #17 » by **Dexmor** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 10:18 pm

My head is not spinning and Im not the one who said i don't understand.

Also he might have not said system but if not system what do you think better fit means? Better fit with the team means better fit in our system. It's the same thing.

e4Nf6 · Post #18 » by **e4Nf6** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 11:00 pm

Even in the best year of his career in Washington he still only shot 43%, he is the quintessential "volume scorer," in the years following his breakout in Washington he played 36, 37, 30, and this year 27 minutes per game. If that isn't enough time to "get in a rhythm," I don't know what an extra 5 minutes will do to help.

He also played for (by my count, I don't think he played for Scott Skiles) 3 different coaches and somehow none of them were able to "use him correctly,"

Hughes is an average player who had one good year and inflates his PPG (and hurts his team) by shooting too much. On top of all that, he is getting a bit old. If you want to make a trade for salary cap relief or something like that, go ahead. But He has next to nothing to offer on the court.

truthbtold21 · Post #19 » by **truthbtold21** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 11:18 pm

Sorry fellas let me clarify what i meant when i said fit. I meant best fit for this team's system and players, which sg could help this team the most, while Allen Iverson is a cousin of mine im not being a homer i just think like someone said he draws so much attention to himself that you have to send extra people to him.Thanks for the help bigslam with the poll cuz stay blessed.

Post #20 » by **BigSlam** » Fri Jan 9, 2009 11:51 pm

Dexmor wrote:My head is not spinning and Im not the one who said i don't understand.

Also he might have not said system but if not system what do you think better fit means? Better fit with the team means better fit in our system. It's the same thing.

If we can get Salmons, but he costs us Felton, Crash and a pick is he a better fit than Hughes who we could acquire for Nazzy and Hammer allowing us to shed two bad salaries?

It's all about fit - which as far as I am concerned consists of ability, style of play, skill set, contract and what sort of effect the player would have on the current roster.

Who is a better fit?