Biedrins is more valueble than Ellis

Sid the Squid · Post #1 » by **Sid the Squid** » Thu May 8, 2008 6:38 pm

I'd pay AB 1st..

Monta's a great little gaurd..But he HAS to be a full-time PG..We cant play him at the 2 ..That's crazy talk...You play him at the 2 exactly who do you get to play the 1 and defend the 2's? You need a miraclle to happen..No No..Let's say we could get TJ Ford or Calderon..You cant seriously play either of those guys next to Ellis..Ellis is not a 2 gaurd..He's a PG..He's got to be..Then we need a tough defending to 2 gaurd to play with him..Somebody who can hit the open J created by Tay.

Monta at the 2 is a stupid long-term plan..What do you want him to be? The next David Wesley or World B Free? He has to be a PG.

So until Monta proves he can become a star PG in this league, he's not worth the numbers being mentioned..I'd give him 6 years at 45 million or a shorter deal for more per year...

Biedrins I'd sign for 6 years at 50 to 60 million.

Post #2 » by **Sleepy51** » Thu May 8, 2008 6:44 pm

Sid the Squid wrote:I'd pay AB 1st..

Monta's a great little gaurd..But he HAS to be a full-time PG..We cant play him at the 2 ..That's crazy talk...You play him at the 2 exactly who do you get to play the 1 and defend the 2's? You need a miraclle to happen..No No..Let's say we could get TJ Ford or Calderon..You cant seriously play either of those guys next to Ellis..Ellis is not a 2 gaurd..He's a PG..He's got to be..Then we need a tough defending to 2 gaurd to play with him..Somebody who can hit the open J created by Tay.

Jack?

Post #3 » by **Sleepy51** » Thu May 8, 2008 6:47 pm

Bell?

Sid the Squid · Post #4 » by **Sid the Squid** » Thu May 8, 2008 6:48 pm

I'm not sure this is who you are talking about, but here's the +/- stats for Jack of Portland.

I havnt really paid much attention to him..I remember one time he impressed me, and a few time he played terrible.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7_EZpTcNMOg&feature=related

Post #5 » by **Sleepy51** » Thu May 8, 2008 6:50 pm

I think Iggy or Manu are the ideal guys to play next to him, but we can't afford to spend that much on guards. Rush is the only answer. If we pay Tay, we have to draft Rush to step in when Baron leaves and Jack is dealt.

Post #6 » by **Sleepy51** » Thu May 8, 2008 6:50 pm

Sid the Squid wrote:I'm not sure this is who you are talking about, but here's the +/- stats for Jack of Portland.

I havnt really paid much attention to him..I remember one time he impressed me, and a few time he played terrible.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7_EZpTcNMOg&feature=related

I meant our Jack.

Post #7 » by **FNQ** » Thu May 8, 2008 6:51 pm

Definitely one of the questions that should have been answered last year... is Monta going to be our PG?

Instead we're going into his contract negotiations with NO leverage... he showed flashes, and in this league, thats enough to get overpaid... our franchise has cataracts...

Sid the Squid · Post #8 » by **Sid the Squid** » Thu May 8, 2008 6:52 pm

Sleepy51 wrote:I think Iggy or Manu are the ideal guys to play next to him, but we can't afford to spend that much on guards. Rush is the only answer. If we pay Tay, we have to draft Rush to step in when Baron leaves and Jack is dealt.

I like Rush..I like snatching Gordon if your going for higher upside..Rush though would be the solid pick at 14..

Sid the Squid · Post #9 » by **Sid the Squid** » Thu May 8, 2008 6:56 pm

510Reggae wrote:Definitely one of the questions that should have been answered last year... is Monta going to be our PG?

Instead we're going into his contract negotiations with NO leverage... he showed flashes, and in this league, thats enough to get overpaid... our franchise has cataracts...

Exactly reg..that's why you get paid the big bucks here...I didnt see the screw up until you pointed it out..Nice early detection :bowdown:

Sid the Squid · Post #10 » by **Sid the Squid** » Thu May 8, 2008 6:57 pm

I'd love our Jack to stay here and play the 2-3 with a strong coach who won't put up with the chucking.

Post #11 » by **Sleepy51** » Thu May 8, 2008 6:58 pm

510Reggae wrote:Definitely one of the questions that should have been answered last year... is Monta going to be our PG?

Instead we're going into his contract negotiations with NO leverage... he showed flashes, and in this league, thats enough to get overpaid... our franchise has cataracts...

I understand what you are saying, but for us to have any leverage, he wouldn't he have to have failed as a PG? How is that a good thing?

Post #12 » by **FNQ** » Thu May 8, 2008 6:59 pm

My overall take? Because of Monta's skills, we don't really need a star of any kind... remember the relevance of Fred Hoiberg and Trenton Hassell? Good defenders who could hit open shots..

A name thats grown on me as a 2nd rounder is Shan Foster... ugly shooting style, but when he gets both feet planted, his accuracy is amazing... convince the kid the only way he's on court is if he plays intense D (which he can at times)... so long as we aren't the suckers giving him a multi year deal...

Marco could be that guy too... needs to work on D and lose some of his natural Italian flabbiness... I think any "investments" we make in the 2 guard spot, be that draft pick, trade, or signing Monta with that intention is a huge mistake.

Post #13 » by **FNQ** » Thu May 8, 2008 7:04 pm

Sleepy51 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I understand what you are saying, but for us to have any leverage, he wouldn't he have to have failed as a PG? How is that a good thing?

Trade value.

Other teams are still going to want him for his explosive ability, and they might believe they have the complimentary piece... either way, WE would have a clear idea of what he can do in the games... instead we're trying to guess while gambling with millions of dollars that Cohan really hates to spend.

GSWhoopfan · Post #14 » by **GSWhoopfan** » Thu May 8, 2008 7:06 pm

Both Monta and Biedrins deserve 10-12M a season contracts. Id give Biedrins a litte more though. I have no issues with them both getting 6 years at 60-66M each.

In 3 years, Biedrins and Monta are going to look like steals at 10M/season. Theyre gonna play like MAX contract players. These players are so scary, that we dont know where they will peak at. Sky is still the limit with these kids.

Dont fcuk up negotiations. Give them their bread.

turk3d · Post #15 » by **turk3d** » Thu May 8, 2008 7:07 pm

I'm going to answer the original question posted: yes, I think Beans is more important than Monta (although not by much, I'd give Beans the edge). They're almost equally important to this franchise imo.

GSW2K4 · Post #16 » by **GSW2K4** » Thu May 8, 2008 7:16 pm

turk3d wrote:I'm going to answer the original question posted: yes, I think Beans is more important than Monta (although not by much, I'd give Beans the edge). They're almost equally important to this franchise imo.

I agree because of the dearth of centers in this league.

It would be great if we could keep both and allow them - along with Wright - to grow as a unit.

It would be really tough to give up on Monta now and watch him blow up on another team who's a bit better with player development and creative with personnel decisions.

Post #17 » by **Sleepy51** » Thu May 8, 2008 7:20 pm

510Reggae wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Trade value.

Either I'm still confused, or you are getting confused. (I'm not at all sure it's me this time.)

A. Monta blows it as a point guard = trade value goes down

B. Monta excels as a point guard = trade value goes up but why the eff would we be thinking about his trade value if we've just discovered he is our future PG?

C. Monta is an unknown as a PG = trade value is lower . . . but we're weren't planning on trading him if he's a real PG, unless you REALLY want to re-sign Baron for 6 years?

Post #18 » by **FNQ** » Thu May 8, 2008 7:26 pm

Sleepy51 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Either I'm still confused, or you are getting confused. (I'm not at all sure it's me this time.)

A. Monta blows it as a point guard = trade value goes down
Arguable. Chris Wallace still has a job, and there are plenty of desperate franchises looking to acquire a potential franchise player. Teams would be lining up round the block to get a crack at Monta.

B. Monta excels as a point guard = trade value goes up but why the eff would we be thinking about his trade value if we've just discovered he is our future PG?
At this point, we'd keep him. That's a given.

C. Monta is an unknown as a PG = trade value is lower . . . but we're weren't planning on trading him if he's a real PG, unless you REALLY want to re-sign Baron for 6 years?
Where we are right now. The trade value is only IF Monta fails... its a given to sign him if he succeeds... this option, C, is the worst case scenario... I'd much rather know what we have than have to guess again... yet here we are.

Post #19 » by **Sleepy51** » Thu May 8, 2008 7:29 pm

510Reggae wrote:The trade value is only IF Monta fails... its a given to sign him if he succeeds... this option, C, is the worst case scenario... I'd much rather know what we have than have to guess again... yet here we are.

I still don't see how Monta's trade value is enhanced by exposing a failure at PG. It simply does make sense the way you are presenting it.

Post #20 » by **FNQ** » Thu May 8, 2008 7:31 pm

Sleepy51 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I still don't see how Monta's trade value is enhanced by exposing a failure at PG. It simply does make sense the way you are presenting it.

Who said it was enhanced? :confused:

I even said teams would still be interested in Monta... implying that they knew he failed as a PG here.

I'm saying its still good enough to get something very valuable with an outside shot of a desperate franchise overpaying.