Moderators: 7 Footer, Morris_Shatford, DG88, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, lebron stopper, HiJiNX
Guy Smiley wrote:LLJ wrote:Shaq:
95-96--54 games
96-97--51 games
97-98--60 games
That's where the comparison stops.
Age and production.
Jalen Rose laughs at this.
LLJ wrote:Guy Smiley wrote:LLJ wrote:Shaq:
95-96--54 games
96-97--51 games
97-98--60 games
That's where the comparison stops.
Age and production.
Jalen Rose laughs at this.
Yeah, but Jalen was an iron man and rarely missed games so he doesn't have that excuse. We thought he was phoning it in, but sadly, he really was done.
Let's hope JO is more like your boy Vince before he was traded.
Champipple wrote:Hendrix wrote:Champipple wrote:My first post in this thread since the deal went down.
I haven't scanned all 41 pages, but I've skimmed through a lot of posts, here's my take:
A) This move is high risk / high reward
BC is rolling the dice. This move can make him look like a genius or a fool. BC has always shown he has the cahones to pull big moves and this is a classic move. He probably could have gotten safer players back in a trade (Frye / Webster), but he's swinging for the fences.
I don't think this is all that high risk. I see it more low risk, high reward.
We're giving up Rasho, the 17, and TJ. So basically we have the team we had last year after TJ went down and have added an impact player to it that fills a ton of our needs. Rasho's good, but really nothing special, and not much more then an expiring now. TJ, and Calderon were redundent together, and our PG play shouldn't have much of a drop off with Calderon playing 40 minutes/game. The center position isn't going to take much of a drop off with Rasho gone, but could be great.
I think our offense is going to be fine. We have more then enough capible scorers, and while J.O isn't exactly like some people think offensivly like Harry pointed out. We don't need him to be. We have a very goof offensive team as it is, and J.O just made it better then any offense we got from Bargnani/Rasho last year. The defense, and rebounding is the big thing. That will be a massive improvmetn over last year. And if he's injured we finihs 5th-7th like last year, and have a 23 million expiring on our hands, in a year.
For me, the high risk is due to injury and conditioning. Nobody knows how healthy he is, and if you pop over to the Indiana boards, they say that every year in the off-season they have been fed nothing but "he's now healthy and looks great" only to have him look terrible and injured during the season. If he comes in and can only play half a season, or looks old, fat and tired, Raps lose the trade not based on what they gave up, but what they could have gotten instead.
Joker wrote:Marcus Camby averaged 49 games per season in his first 7 seasons. He's averaged 69 games per season since then. And that turnaround happened when he was around 29-30, IIRC.
Guy Smiley wrote:
Mo Pete says hello.
Kordic27 wrote:True, Shaq and Camby are two... but in coming up with names of players who had consistently missed games for a few years, and then returned to play a significant number of games for a few year, you start to realize that it's the rare exception rather than the norm. So in hoping that JO play a good number of games (65+), we're hoping for something that is unlikely to happen. Weird to trade for that, I think.
Guy Smiley wrote:Snowcrash wrote:
Gamble? Nah. I don't even buy lottery tickets. Don't like the odds.
And yet you call yourself a Raptor fan?
Kordic27 wrote:True, Shaq and Camby are two... but in coming up with names of players who had consistently missed games for a few years, and then returned to play a significant number of games for a few year, you start to realize that it's the rare exception rather than the norm. So in hoping that JO play a good number of games (65+), we're hoping for something that is unlikely to happen. Weird to trade for that, I think.
|llsT oNe wrote:Kordic27 wrote:True, Shaq and Camby are two... but in coming up with names of players who had consistently missed games for a few years, and then returned to play a significant number of games for a few year, you start to realize that it's the rare exception rather than the norm. So in hoping that JO play a good number of games (65+), we're hoping for something that is unlikely to happen. Weird to trade for that, I think.
Grant Hill is nearing this status too, Mcdyess is another, albeit in a lesser role.
Give me some names to support the opposite being true? It seems intuitive, but I'd like to see examples.
Sean (Spokane): What do you think of the Raptors-Pacers deal?
Chad Ford: (1:39 PM ET ) I think it's a win-win deal. I think the Pacers walk away with three things: a great player (Ford), a young prospect (17th pick) and lots of cap space in 2009. That's the holy trinity in a trade. And I think the Raptors get a potentially dominating big man if Jermaine O'Neal is healthy. This is cleary a case of one man's trash is another man's treasure. I think this trade will make both teams much better next year. So much for all of those haters that said Larry Bird doesn't have game as a GM. This was a very sophisticated move. Better than I thought the Pacers could get for O'Neal.
